Verbal memory and hippocampal volume predict subsequent fornix microstructure in those at risk for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While strong cross-sectional evidence supported the use of fornix microstructure as a marker for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD), longitudinal data remains inconclusive on the sequential nature of fornix microstructure abnormalities and AD progression. An unequivocal longitudinal relationship between fornix microstructure and markers of AD progression -memory impairment and hippocampal atrophy, must be established to validate fornix microstructure as a marker of AD progression. We included 115 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative across the non-demented AD spectrum- defined as those who had at least one AD risk marker at baseline (e.g., mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD diagnosis, amyloid or ApoE4 positivity) and/or 'cognitively normal individuals who converted to MCI due to AD or AD, with structural and diffusion tensor imaging scans at baseline and two years follow-up. Hippocampal volumes (HV), fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) in the fornix were extracted. Memory was indexed via composite scores of verbal memory tests. Structural equation models tested the bidirectional cross-lagged effects of fornix microstructure, memory, and HV. Impaired memory and smaller HV at baseline significantly predicted worse fornix microstructure (decreased FA and increased MD) two years later. Baseline fornix microstructure was not associated with subsequent changes in memory and HV. Fornix microstructure is compromised likely at a later stage, where significant decline in memory and hippocampal atrophy have occurred. This limits the utility of fornix microstructure in the early detection of AD. Our findings inform the possible pathophysiology and refined the use of AD neural markers.
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".