MRI Asymmetry Index of Hippocampal Subfields Increases Through the Continuum From the Mild Cognitive Impairment to the Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: It is well known that the hippocampus presents significant asymmetry in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and that difference in volumes between left and right exists and varies with disease progression. However, few works investigated whether the asymmetry degree of subfields of hippocampus changes through the continuum from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to AD. Thus, aim of the present work was to evaluate the Asymmetry Index (AI) of hippocampal substructures as possible MRI biomarkers of Dementia. Moreover, we aimed to assess whether the subfields presented peculiar differences between left and right hemispheres. We also investigated the relationship between the asymmetry magnitude in hippocampal subfields and the decline of verbal memory as assessed by Rey’s auditory verbal learning test (RAVLT). Methods: Four-hundred subjects were selected from ADNI, equally divided into healthy controls (HC), AD, stable MCI (sMCI) and progressive MCI (pMCI). The structural baseline T1s were processed with FreeSurfer 6.0 and volumes of whole hippocampus (WH) and 12 subfields were extracted. The AI was calculated as: (|Left-Right|/(Left+Right))*100. ANCOVA was used for evaluating AI differences between diagnoses, while paired t-test was applied for assessing changes between left and right volumes, separately for each group. Partial correlation was performed for exploring relationship between RAVLT summary scores (Immediate, Learning, Forgetting, Percent Forgetting) and hippocampal substructures AI. The statistical threshold was Bonferroni corrected p<0.05/13=0.0038. Results: We found a general trend of increased degree of asymmetry with increasing severity of diagnosis. Indeed, AD presented the higher magnitude of asymmetry compared with HC, sMCI and pMCI, in the WH (AI mean 5.13±4.29 SD) and in each of its twelve subfields. Moreover, we found in AD a significant negative correlation (r =-0.33, p=0.00065) between the AI of parasubiculum (mean 12.70±9.59 SD) and the RAVLT Learning score (mean 1.70±1.62 SD). Conclusions: Our findings showed that hippocampal subfields AI varies differently among the four groups HC, sMCI, pMCI and AD. Moreover, we found - for the first time - that hippocampal substructures had different sub-patterns of lateralization compared with the whole hippocampus. Importantly, the severity in learning rate was correlated with pathological high degree of asymmetry in parasubiculum of AD patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".