Hippocampal subfield volumes and pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease in 408 cognitively normal adults born in 1946
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human hippocampus comprises a number of interconnected histologically and functionally distinct subfields, which may be differentially influenced by cerebral pathology. Automated techniques are now available that estimate hippocampal subfield volumes using in vivo structural MRI data. To date, research investigating the influence of cerebral β-amyloid deposition-one of the earliest hypothesised changes in the pathophysiological continuum of Alzheimer's disease-on hippocampal subfield volumes in cognitively normal older individuals, has been limited. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from 408 cognitively normal individuals born in mainland Britain (age range at time of assessment = 69.2-71.9 years) who underwent cognitive assessment, 18F-Florbetapir PET and structural MRI on the same 3 Tesla PET/MR unit (spatial resolution 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1. mm), we investigated the influences of β-amyloid status, age at scan, and global white matter hyperintensity volume on: CA1, CA2/3, CA4, dentate gyrus, presubiculum and subiculum volumes, adjusting for sex and total intracranial volume. RESULTS: Compared to β-amyloid negative participants (n = 334), β-amyloid positive participants (n = 74) had lower volume of the presubiculum (3.4% smaller, p = 0.012). Despite an age range at scanning of just 2.7 years, older age at time of scanning was associated with lower CA1 (p = 0.007), CA4 (p = 0.004), dentate gyrus (p = 0.002), and subiculum (p = 0.035) volumes. There was no evidence that white matter hyperintensity volume was associated with any subfield volumes. CONCLUSION: These data provide evidence of differential associations in cognitively normal older adults between hippocampal subfield volumes and β-amyloid deposition and, increasing age at time of scan. The relatively selective effect of lower presubiculum volume in the β-amyloid positive group potentially suggest that the presubiculum may be an area of early and relatively specific volume loss in the pathophysiological continuum of Alzheimer's disease. Future work using higher resolution imaging will be key to exploring these findings further.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".