MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765348398 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.1584

[P3–368]: TEMPORAL LOBE ATROPHY IN MCI ADULTS WITH OR WITHOUT DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS AND IN PATIENTS WITH LATE‐LIFE DEPRESSION

2017· article· en· W2765348398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Camille Parent, Simon Duchesne, Carol Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntorhinal cortexTemporal lobeAtrophyLate life depressionPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDepression (economics)Internal medicineConfoundingCognitive declineTemporal cortexHippocampusMedicineCognitionAudiologyDementiaPsychiatryDiseaseNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or late-life depression (LLD) are at high risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Few studies have examined the shared and specific clinical characteristics associated with these conditions. Yet, a great proportion of persons with MCI have depressive symptoms (MCI/D+), while LLD is often associated with cognitive deficits. Previous studies have shown that temporal lobe atrophy, which is typical in both MCI and LLD, is associated with cognitive decline and progression to AD. This study aims to compare atrophy of temporal lobe structures between MCI without depressive symptoms (MCI/D-), MCI/D+ and LLD. Participants were composed of older adults with MCI (Albert et al., 2011 criteria) with (n=32) or without (n=35) depressive symptoms as well as patients with LLD (DSM-V major depressive disorder; n=35). 3D T1-weighted magnetic resonance images were acquired on a 3.0-Tesla Phillips using a standardized ADNI protocol and were analyzed using Freesurfer (5.3.0). Analyses investigated multiple temporal regions, including the hippocampus (H), parahippocampal cortex (PHC), entorhinal cortex (EC), and middle temporal cortex (MTC). Sociodemographic variables and global cognitive functioning (total MoCA score) were included as potential confounding covariables. A multifactorial analysis of covariance was used to compare groups regarding the volumes of the regions of interest. There was a statistically significant difference between groups for the left H (p=.009). No other statistically significant difference was observed (ps > .05) Pairwise comparisons revealed that volume of the left H was significantly higher for MCI/D- compared to MCI/D+ (p=.007), while LLD did not statistically differ from either of those groups (ps > .05). These findings suggest that MCI/D+ and MCI/D- can be distinguished using volumetric measures of the left hippocampus. These differences are observed even when global cognitive functioning and sociodemographic variables are controlled for, therefore indicating that the observed differences are due to inherent characteristics of MCI/D+ and MCI/D-. However, these findings reveal the absence of anatomical differences between MCI and LLD. Further research should study the incidence of such differences on progression towards AD risk and investigate other potential differences amongst these at-risk groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→