A Novel Joint Brain Network Analysis Using Longitudinal Alzheimer’s Disease Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is well-documented evidence of brain network differences between individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and healthy controls (HC). To date, imaging studies investigating brain networks in these populations have typically been cross-sectional, and the reproducibility of such findings is somewhat unclear. In a novel study, we use the longitudinal ADNI data on the whole brain to jointly compute the brain network at baseline and one-year using a state of the art approach that pools information across both time points to yield distinct visit-specific networks for the AD and HC cohorts, resulting in more accurate inferences. We perform a multiscale comparison of the AD and HC networks in terms of global network metrics as well as at the more granular level of resting state networks defined under a whole brain parcellation. Our analysis illustrates a decrease in small-worldedness in the AD group at both the time points and also identifies more local network features and hub nodes that are disrupted due to the progression of AD. We also obtain high reproducibility of the HC network across visits. On the other hand, a separate estimation of the networks at each visit using standard graphical approaches reveals fewer meaningful differences and lower reproducibility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".