MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768773966 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187281

Multivariate regression analysis of structural MRI connectivity matrices in Alzheimer’s disease

2017· article· en· W2768773966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Javier Rasero, Nicola Amoroso, Marianna La Rocca, Sabina Tangaro, R. Bellotti, Sebastiano Stramaglia

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseEusko JaurlaritzaNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of California, San DiegoPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsRegressionDiseaseMultivariate analysisAlzheimer's diseaseComputational biologyBiologyMedicineStatisticsMathematicsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia among older people and increasing longevity ensures its prevalence will rise even further. Whether AD originates by disconnecting a localized brain area and propagates to the rest of the brain across disease-severity progression is a question with an unknown answer. An important related challenge is to predict whether a given subject, with a mild cognitive impairment (MCI), will convert or not to AD. Here, our aim is to characterize the structural connectivity pattern of MCI and AD subjects using the multivariate distance matrix regression (MDMR) analysis, and to compare it to those of healthy subjects. MDMR is a technique developed in genomics that has been recently applied to functional brain network data, and here applied to identify brain nodes with different connectivity patterns, in controls and patients, because of brain atrophy. We address this issue at the macroscale by looking to differences in individual structural MRI brain networks, obtained from MR images according to a recently proposed definition of connectivity which measures the image similarity between patches at different locations in the brain. In particular, using data from ADNI, we selected four groups of subjects (all of them matched by age and sex): HC (healthy control participants), ncMCI (mild cognitive impairment not converting to AD), cMCI (mild cognitive impairment converting to AD) and AD. Next, we built structural MRI brain networks and performed group comparison for all the pairs of groups. Our results were three-fold: (i) considering the comparison of HC with the three other groups, the number of significant brain regions was 4 for ncMCI, 290 for cMCI and 74 for AD, out of a total of 549 regions; hence, in terms of the structural MRI connectivity here adopted, cMCI subjects have the maximal altered pattern w.r.t. healthy conditions. (ii) Eight and seven nodes were significant for the comparisons AD-ncMCI and AD-cMCI, respectively; six nodes, among them, were significant in both comparisons and these nodes form a connected brain region (corresponding to hippocampus, amygdala, Parahippocampal Gyrus, Planum Polare, Frontal Orbital Cortex, Temporal Pole and subcallosal cortex) showing reduced strength of connectivity in the MCI stages; (iii) The connectivity maps of cMCI and ncMCI subjects significantly differ from the connectome of healthy subjects in three regions all corresponding to Frontal Orbital Cortex.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→