P2‐474: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEUROINFLAMMATION (LEVEL) AND VERBAL AND VISUAL MEMORY PERFORMANCE IN HIGH AFFINITY BINDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current research suggests that along with amyloid-beta plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, other pathophysiological events are involved in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Previous studies using PET have demonstrated that neuroinflammation, measured as the translocator protein 18kd (TSPO) availability, affects cognitive performance across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical presentations. However, these results stem from studies including high and mixed affinity binders. The objective of this study was to determine, in living patients, whether the neuroinflammation load is associated with verbal and visual memory performance in a sample of high affinity binders. Participants were 72 years old on average and had 14.8 years of education. The sample included 34 cognitively healthy elderly (CH), 6 people diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 7 patients suffering from AD dementia. The positron emission tomography (PET) for neuroinflammation was performed with the [C]PBR-28 radiopharmaceutical. The participants had detailed clinical and neuropsychological including the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and the Aggies figures learning test (AFLT). A MRI was also conducted to provide structural information for the PET analysis. Quantification of [C]PBR-28 was performed with individual voxel maps and standardisation was achieved with SUVR. Linear regression models were used to examine the relation of neuroinflammation on the memory performances. AD patients had the poorest memory performances while the CN participants performed the best. Both RAVLT and AFLT were negatively correlated with high concentration of neuroinflammation [C]PBR-28. Specific concentration of neuroinflammation was visible in the posterior cingulated cortex, precuneus, bilateral parahippocampal gyri and left temporal cortex in association with RAVLT (figure 1). For the AFLT, the results highlight a specific accumulation of neuroinflammation in the posterior cingulated cortex, precuneus and right enthorinal cortex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".