MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803113191 · doi:10.1093/brain/awy122

Testing a longitudinal compensation model in premanifest Huntington’s disease

2018· article· en· W2803113191 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Gregory, Jeffrey D. Long, Stefan Klöppel, Adeel Razi, Elisa Scheller, Lora Minkova, Eileanoir B. Johnson, Alexandra Dürr, Raymund A.C. Roos, Blair R. Leavitt, James A. Mills, Julie C. Stout, Rachael I. Scahill, Sarah J. Tabrizi, Geraint Rees, Alan Coleman, Joji Decolongon, Ming Fan, Tamara Koren, C Jauffret, Damián Justo, Stéphane Lehéricy, K Nigaud, Romain Valabrègue, R. A. C. Roos, Ellen P. Hart, Anne Schoonderbeek, C. Berna, Helen Crawford, Rhia Ghosh, Peter McColgan, Marina Papoutsi, Joy Read, Gail Owen, David Craufurd, Ralf Reilmann, N Weber, Izelle Labuschagne, G. Bernhard Landwehrmeyer, Michael Orth

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome TrustUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCure Huntington's Disease InitiativeCHDI Foundation
KeywordsHuntington's diseaseNeurodegenerationNeuroscienceCognitionPsychologyDiseaseCompensation (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The initial stages of neurodegeneration are commonly marked by normal levels of cognitive and motor performance despite the presence of structural brain pathology. Compensation is widely assumed to account for this preserved behaviour, but despite the apparent simplicity of such a concept, it has proven incredibly difficult to demonstrate such a phenomenon and distinguish it from disease-related pathology. Recently, we developed a model of compensation whereby brain activation, behaviour and pathology, components key to understanding compensation, have specific longitudinal trajectories over three phases of progression. Here, we empirically validate our explicit mathematical model by testing for the presence of compensation over time in neurodegeneration. Huntington's disease is an ideal model for examining longitudinal compensation in neurodegeneration as it is both monogenic and fully penetrant, so disease progression and potential compensation can be monitored many years prior to diagnosis. We defined our conditions for compensation as non-linear longitudinal trajectories of brain activity and performance in the presence of linear neuronal degeneration and applied our model of compensation to a large longitudinal cohort of premanifest and early-stage Huntington's disease patients from the multisite Track-On HD study. Focusing on cognitive and motor networks, we integrated progressive volume loss, task and resting state functional MRI and cognitive and motor behaviour across three sequential phases of neurodegenerative disease progression, adjusted for genetic disease load. Multivariate linear mixed models were fitted and trajectories for each variable tested. Our conceptualization of compensation was partially realized across certain motor and cognitive networks at differing levels. We found several significant network trends that were more complex than that hypothesized in our model. These trends suggest changes to our theoretical model where the network effects are delayed relative to performance effects. There was evidence of compensation primarily in the prefrontal component of the cognitive network, with increased effective connectivity between the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Having developed an operational model for the explicit testing of longitudinal compensation in neurodegeneration, it appears that general patterns of our framework are consistent with the empirical data. With the proposed modifications, our operational model of compensation can be used to test for both cross-sectional and longitudinal compensation in neurodegenerative disease with similar patterns to Huntington's disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207