Classifying cognitive impairment based on the spatial heterogeneity of cerebral blood flow images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The spatial coefficient of variation (sCoV) of arterial spin-labeled (ASL) MRI can index cerebral blood flow spatial heterogeneity. This metric reflects delayed blood delivery-seen as a hyperintense ASL signal juxtaposed by hypointense regions. PURPOSE: To investigate the use of ASL-sCoV in the classification of cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) cohorts. STUDY TYPE: Prospective/cohort. POPULATION: Baseline ASL images from AD neuroimaging initiative dataset in three groups of CU, MCI, and AD (N = 258). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Pulsed ASL (PICORE QT2) images were acquired on 3 T Siemens systems (TE/TR = 12/3400 msec, TI1/2 = 700/1900 msec). ASSESSMENT: ASL-sCoV was calculated in temporal, parietal, occipital, and frontal lobes as well as whole gray matter. STATISTICAL TESTS: The primary analysis used an analysis of covariance to investigate sCoV and cognitive group (CU, MCI, AD) associations. We also evaluated the repeatability of sCoV by calculating within-subject agreement in a subgroup of CU participants with a repeat ASL. The secondary analyses assessed ventricular volume, amyloid burden, glucose uptake, ASL-sCoV, and regional CBF as cognitive group classifiers using logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: We found that global and temporal lobe sCoV differed between cognitive groups (P = 0.006). Post-hoc tests showed that temporal lobe sCoV was lower in CU than in MCI (Cohen's d = -0.36) or AD (Cohen's d = -1.36). We found that sCoV was moderately repeatable in CU (intersession intraclass correlation = 0.50; intrasession intraclass correlation = 0.88). Subsequent logistic regression analyses revealed that temporal lobe sCoV and amyloid uptake classified CU vs. MCI (P < 0.01; accuracy = 78%). Temporal lobe sCoV, amyloid, and glucose uptake classified CU vs. AD (P < 0.01; accuracy = 97%); glucose uptake significantly classified MCI vs. AD (P < 0.01; accuracy = 85%). DATA CONCLUSION: We showed that ASL spatial heterogeneity can be used alongside AD neuroimaging markers to distinguish cognitive groups, in particular, cognitively unimpaired from cognitively impaired individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:858-867.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".