MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895814504 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.1721

P3‐359: ASSESSMENT OF WHOLE‐BRAIN STRUCTURAL CHANGES USING THE BRAIN ATROPHY AND LESION INDEX: A VALIDATION ACROSS MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT DATASETS

2018· article· en· W2895814504 on OpenAlexaff
Lukas A. Grajauskas, Ryan C.N. D’Arcy, Xiaowei Song

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrophyCognitionCategorical variableMedicineCognitive impairmentCognitive declineAudiologyPsychologyDiseaseInternal medicineStatisticsDementiaPsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain is a complex and interconnected system; multiple neurodegenerative changes can cumulate to contribute to cognitive decline. The MRI based Brain Atrophy and Lesion Index (BALI) has been created to evaluate structural changes of the whole brain by summarizing deficits in several categories. So far, BALI has been applied to thousands of subjects from multiple independent datasets from around the world. In the present study, we examined the consistency of the BALI assessment in differentiating subjects with Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal cognition, and the associations of BALI with age and cognition. Data were obtained from studies published between 2010 and 2017, which involved large-scale open-access multi-centre datasets (n=2790), as well as several local datasets (n=310). Evaluation of the MR images followed the standard BALI assessment schema and carried out by multiple raters trained on the method. Results from the studies were compared and then pooled. Differences in the mean BALI scores across diagnoses were investigated using the Wallis-Kruskal Chi2 test and Cohen effect size. Inter-rater agreement rate was consistently high, ranging from 0.81 to 0.91. In all datasets, there was a difference in the BALI total score and sub-categorical scores between diagnostic groups (e.g. total BALI, Chi2>24.0, p<0.001) with variations between studies. Analyses combining the samples suggested a medium to large effect size depending on diagnosis. The associations between the total BALI score and age (p<0.0001) and various measures of cognition (p<0.01) were also consistent. The BALI was applied to a series of datasets for assessment of whole-brain structural changes in ageing-dementia, showing as both robust and generalizable. The method allows us to investigate the impact of aging on brain structural health, and assess how this affects cognitive decline and dementia. Variations in BALI assessment between different studies can be explained by differences in the study samples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207