Lifespan Changes of the Human Brain In Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain imaging studies have shown that slow and progressive cerebral atrophy characterized the development of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Despite a large number of studies dedicated to AD, key questions about the lifespan evolution of AD biomarkers remain open. When does the AD model diverge from the normal aging model? What is the lifespan trajectory of imaging biomarkers for AD? How do the trajectories of biomarkers in AD differ from normal aging? To answer these questions, we proposed an innovative way by inferring brain structure model across the entire lifespan using a massive number of MRI (N = 4329). We compared the normal model based on 2944 control subjects with the pathological model based on 3262 patients (AD + Mild cognitive Impaired subjects) older than 55 years and controls younger than 55 years. Our study provides evidences of early divergence of the AD models from the normal aging trajectory before 40 years for the hippocampus, followed by the lateral ventricles and the amygdala around 40 years. Moreover, our lifespan model reveals the evolution of these biomarkers and suggests close abnormality evolution for the hippocampus and the amygdala, whereas trajectory of ventricular enlargement appears to follow an inverted U-shape. Finally, our models indicate that medial temporal lobe atrophy and ventricular enlargement are two mid-life physiopathological events characterizing AD brain.
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 | 0.001 | 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".