One-year Follow-up Study of Hippocampal Subfield Atrophy in Alzheimer's Disease and Normal Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the effect of hippocampal subfield atrophy on the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by analyzing baseline magnetic resonance images (MRI) and images collected over a one-year follow-up period. Previous studies have suggested that morphological changes to the hippocampus are involved in both normal ageing and the development of AD. The volume of the hippocampus is an authentic imaging biomarker for AD. However, the diverse relationship of anatomical and complex functional connectivity between different subfields implies that neurodegenerative disease could lead to differences between the atrophy rates of subfields. Therefore, morphometric measurements at subfield-level could provide stronger biomarkers. METHODS: Hippocampal subfield atrophies are measured using MRI scans, taken at multiple time points, and shape-based normalization to a Montreal neurological institute (MNI) ICBM 152 nonlinear atlas. Ninety subjects were selected from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), and divided equally into Healthy Controls (HC), AD, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) groups. These subjects underwent serial MRI studies at three time-points: baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: We analyzed the subfield-level hippocampal morphometric effects of normal ageing and AD based on radial distance mapping and volume measurements. We identified a general trend and observed the largest hippocampal subfield atrophies in the AD group. Atrophy of the bilateral CA1, CA2- CA4 and subiculum subfields was higher in the case of AD than in MCI and HC. We observed the highest rate of reduction in the total volume of the hippocampus, especially in the CA1 and subiculum regions, in the case of MCI. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that hippocampal subfield atrophy varies among the three study groups.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".