A signature pattern of cortical atrophy in dementia with Lewy bodies: A study on 333 patients from the European DLB consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We explored regional brain atrophy patterns and their clinical correlates in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). METHODS: In this multicentre study, we included a total of 333 patients with DLB, 352 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 233 normal controls and used medial temporal lobe atrophy, posterior atrophy, and frontal atrophy (GCA-F) visual rating scales. Patients were classified according to four atrophy patterns. RESULTS: Patients with DLB had higher scores on all the three atrophy scales than normal controls but had less medial temporal lobe atrophy than those with AD (all P values < .001). A signature hippocampal-sparing pattern of regional atrophy was observed in DLB. The magnetic resonance imaging measures showed 65% ability to discriminate between DLB and AD and marginally contributed to the discrimination over and above the core clinical features. DISCUSSION: The most common pattern of atrophy of DLB was hippocampal-sparing. Future studies should explore whether comorbid AD pathology underlies the atrophy patterns seen in DLB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".