Cognitive Changes and Brain Volume Reduction in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of psychological condition of patients suffering from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are rather equivocal about the results: while some claim that NAFLD patients suffer from anxiety and depression more than non-NAFLD controls, others do not withstand those findings. Lower cognitive potentials have also been reported, both in patient related and in animal model-based investigations, and correlated with assessed brain tissue changes. We hypothesized that NAFLD, as a condition, affects the brain tissue and, subsequently, the cognitive state. So we compared findings in 40 NAFLD positive and 36 NAFLD negative patients and correlated their brain tissue volumes with the results of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Binomial logistic regression verified the influence of NAFLD state leading to lower cognitive potentials: odds ratio 0.096; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.032–0.289; p < 0.001 . Patients with NAFLD had a greater risk to suffer from the cognitive impairment and depression: RR = 3.9; 95% CI 1.815–8.381; p = 0.0005 and RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.16–2.36; p = 0.006 . NAFLD significantly influenced the cognitive deficit and tissue volume reduction and patients suffering from NAFLD had about four times higher risk of having a cognitive impairment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".