MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951488689 · doi:10.3389/fninf.2019.00002

Diffusion MRI Indices and Their Relation to Cognitive Impairment in Brain Aging: The Updated Multi-protocol Approach in ADNI3

2019· article· en· W2951488689 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Artemis Zavaliangos‐Petropulu, Talia M. Nir, Sophia I. Thomopoulos, Robert I. Reid, Matt A. Bernstein, Bret Borowski, Clifford R. Jack, Michael W. Weiner, Neda Jahanshad, Paul M. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroinformatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and DevelopmentNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiJanssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research And DevelopmentNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenBioClinicaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsDiffusion MRIFractional anisotropyWhite matterClinical Dementia RatingFornixNeuroimagingCingulum (brain)DementiaPsychologyCognitive impairmentMedicineCognitionNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingDiseasePathologyRadiologyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain imaging with diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) is sensitive to microstructural white matter changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. In its third phase, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI3) is collecting data across multiple sites and scanners using different dMRI acquisition protocols, to better understand disease effects. It is vital to understand when data can be pooled across scanners, and how the choice of dMRI protocol affects the sensitivity of extracted measures to differences in clinical impairment. Here, we analyzed ADNI3 data from 317 participants (mean age: 75.4±7.9 years; 143 men/174 women), who were each scanned at one of 47 sites with one of six dMRI protocols using scanners from three different manufacturers. We computed four standard diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indices including fractional anisotropy (FADTI) and mean, radial, and axial diffusivity, and one FA index based on the tensor distribution function (FATDF), in 24 bilaterally averaged white matter regions of interest. We found that protocol differences significantly affected dMRI indices, in particular FADTI. We ranked the diffusion indices for their strength of association with four clinical assessments. In addition to diagnosis, we evaluated cognitive impairment as indexed by three commonly used screening tools for detecting dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes (CDR-sob). Using a nested random-effects model to account for protocol and site, we found that across all dMRI indices and clinical measures, the hippocampal-cingulum and fornix (crus) / stria terminalis regions most consistently showed strong associations with clinical impairment. Overall, the greatest effect sizes were detected in the hippocampal-cingulum and uncinate fasciculus for associations between axial or mean diffusivity and CDR-sob. FATDF detected robust widespread associations with clinical measures, while FADTI was the weakest of the five indices for detecting associations. Ultimately, we were able to successfully pool dMRI data from multiple acquisition protocols from ADNI3 and detect consistent and robust associations with clinical impairment and age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroinformaticsSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207