Defining SNAP by cross-sectional and longitudinal definitions of neurodegeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Suspected non-Alzheimer's pathophysiology (SNAP) is a biomarker driven designation that represents a heterogeneous group in terms of etiology and prognosis. SNAP has only been identified by cross-sectional neurodegeneration measures, whereas longitudinal measures might better reflect "active" neurodegeneration and might be more tightly linked to prognosis. We compare neurodegeneration defined by cross-sectional 'hippocampal volume' only (SNAP/L-) versus both cross-sectional and longitudinal 'hippocampal atrophy rate' (SNAP/L+) and investigate how these definitions impact prevalence and the clinical and biomarker profile of SNAP in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Methods: 276 MCI patients from ADNI-GO/2 were designated amyloid "positive" (A+) or "negative" (A-) based on their florbetapir scan and neurodegeneration 'positive' or 'negative' based on cross-sectional hippocampal volume and longitudinal hippocampal atrophy rate. Results: 74.1% of all SNAP participants defined by the cross-sectional definition of neurodegeneration also met the longitudinal definition of neurodegeneration, whereas 25.9% did not. SNAP/L+ displayed larger white matter hyperintensity volume, a higher conversion rate to dementia over 5 years and a steeper decline on cognitive tasks compared to SNAP/L- and the A- CN group. SNAP/L- had more abnormal values on neuroimaging markers and worse performance on cognitive tasks than the A- CN group, but did not show a difference in dementia conversion rate or longitudinal cognition. Discussion: Using a longitudinal definition of neurodegeneration in addition to a cross-sectional one identifies SNAP participants with significant cognitive decline and a worse clinical prognosis for which cerebrovascular disease may be an important driver.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".