Enlarged perivascular spaces and cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".