Association between subfield volumes of the medial temporal lobe and cognitive assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive assessments and neuroimaging are routinely combined in clinical practice to diagnose dementia represented by Alzheimer's disease (AD). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is reported to be more suitable than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for screening mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild AD. On the other hand, attention to the subfield volumes of the medial temporal lobe has recently been considered important for the differential diagnosis and early detection of AD. The aim of this study was to uncover which specific hippocampal subfields and adjacent extrahippocampal structures contribute to deficits in cognitive assessment scores in patients with MCI and AD. We recruited from our institute 31 Japanese patients-14 with amnestic MCI and 17 with probable AD, with a clinical dementia rating (CDR) of 0.5 and 1, respectively-and 50 healthy elderly individuals with a CDR of 0. All participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging and cognitive assessments with the MMSE, Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised Logical Memory I and II, and Japanese version of the MoCA (MoCA-J). With adjustment for age and sex, we performed partial correlation analysis of the cognitive assessment scores with the subfield volumes of the medial temporal lobe measured by software-mediated automatic segmentation of hippocampal subfields using high-resolution T1-and T2-weighted images. Compared with normal controls, patients with MCI and AD showed subfield volume reductions in cornu ammonis (CA) 1, CA2, Brodmann area (BA) 35, BA36, the dentate gyrus (DG), the subiculum, and the entorhinal cortex (ERC). All participants showed high correlation coefficients (above 0.6) between cognitive assessment scores and subfield volumes in CA1, the DG, the subiculum, the ERC, and BA36. In patients with MCI and AD, the MoCA-J showed higher correlations than the MMSE with subfield volumes in CA1, the DG, the subiculum, and the ERC. These results suggest that the combination of the in vivo analysis of subfield morphometry of the medial temporal lobe with the MoCA-J paradigm provides important insights into whether changes within specific subfields are related to the cognitive profile in MCI and AD.
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".