Weighted network measures reveal differences between dementia types: An EEG study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) versus Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be difficult especially early in the disease process. However, one inexpensive and non-invasive biomarker which could help is electroencephalography (EEG). Previous studies have shown that the brain network architecture assessed by EEG is altered in AD patients compared with age-matched healthy control people (HC). However, similar studies in Lewy body diseases, that is, DLB and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are still lacking. In this work, we (a) compared brain network connectivity patterns across conditions, AD, DLB and PDD, in order to infer EEG network biomarkers that differentiate between these conditions, and (b) tested whether opting for weighted matrices led to more reliable results by better preserving the topology of the network. Our results indicate that dementia groups present with reduced connectivity in the EEG α band, whereas DLB shows weaker posterior-anterior patterns within the β-band and greater network segregation within the θ-band compared with AD. Weighted network measures were more consistent across global thresholding levels, and the network properties reflected reduction in connectivity strength in the dementia groups. In conclusion, β- and θ-band network measures may be suitable as biomarkers for discriminating DLB from AD, whereas the α-band network is similarly affected in DLB and PDD compared with HC. These variations may reflect the impairment of attentional networks in Parkinsonian diseases such as DLB and PDD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".