MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885306996 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000006079

Enlarged perivascular spaces and cognition

2018· review· en· W2885306996 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalRisk factorDementiaCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyClinical Dementia RatingDemographyPsychologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> To investigate the association of enlarged perivascular spaces (ePVS) with cognition in elderly without dementia. <h3>Methods</h3> We included 5 studies from the Uniform Neuro-Imaging of Virchow-Robin Space Enlargement (UNIVRSE) consortium, namely the Austrian Stroke Prevention Family Study, Study of Health in Pomerania, Rotterdam Study, Epidemiology of Dementia in Singapore study, and Risk Index for Subclinical Brain Lesions in Hong Kong study. ePVS were counted in 4 regions (mesencephalon, hippocampus, basal ganglia, and centrum semiovale) with harmonized rating across studies. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and general fluid cognitive ability factor (G-factor) were used to assess cognitive function. For each study, a linear regression model was performed to estimate the effect of ePVS on MMSE and G-factor. Estimates were pooled across studies with the use of inverse variance meta-analysis with fixed- or random-effect models when appropriate. <h3>Results</h3> The final sample size consisted of 3,575 persons (age range 63.4–73.2 years, 50.6% women). Total ePVS counts were not significantly associated with MMSE score (mean difference per ePVS score increase 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.007 to 0.008, <i>p</i> = 0.885) or G-factor (mean difference per ePVS score increase 0.002, 95% CI −0.001 to 0.006, <i>p</i> = 0.148) in age-, sex-, and education-adjusted models. Adjustments for cardiovascular risk factors and MRI markers did not change the results. Repeating the analyses with region-specific ePVS rendered similar results. <h3>Conclusions</h3> In this study, we found that ePVS counts were not associated with cognitive dysfunction in the general population. Future studies with longitudinal designs are warranted to examine whether ePVS contribute to cognitive decline.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.261 · 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