P3‐326: BRAIN FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE IN INDIVIDUALS WITH SUBJECTIVE COGNITIVE DECLINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) report a change that is not yet measurable with standard neuropsychological assessment measures, they are thought to be the earliest along the cognitive continuum between healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD). The current study used a neuroimaging approach to examine differences in brain function and structure between individuals with SCD and healthy controls (HC). 3T resting state functional MRI (rsfMRI) and high resolution anatomical images were retrieved from 23 individuals with SCD (mean age = 72.9 years, SD = 5.4, 12 females) and 23 HC (mean age = 73.0 years, SD = 5.2, 12 females) from the screening time point from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative database. All data were processed using the FMRIB Software Library. Seed-based analyses of the default mode network (DMN) were used to compare differences in brain function between SCD and HC groups (Z > 2.3; cluster significance: p < 0.05, corrected). Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was used to examine differences in gray matter volume between the SCD and HC groups. The SCD and HC groups were not significantly different in age, education level or performance on a memory composite. Results revealed significantly greater activity in the DMN including the bilateral precuneus cortex, bilateral thalamus, and right hippocampal regions in individuals with SCD relative to controls. Conversely, healthy controls showed significantly greater activation in the left frontal pole and left paracingulate gyrus compared to individuals with SCD. Finally, VBM results did not show significant differences in gray matter volume between the groups. Preliminary findings revealed changes in brain function but not structure between individuals with SCD and HC. Overall, this study represents a crucial step in characterizing individuals with SCD, a group recognized to be at increased risk for AD. It is imperative to identify biomarkers prior to significant decline on clinical assessment, so that disease-delaying interventions may be delivered at the earliest possible time point. Future analyses should examine longitudinal changes over time.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".