Gray matter volume and estimated brain age gap are not linked with <scp>sleep‐disordered</scp> breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) are prevalent conditions with a rising burden. It is suggested that SDB may contribute to cognitive decline and advanced aging. Here, we assessed the link between self-reported SDB and gray matter volume in patients with AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and healthy controls (HCs). We further investigated whether SDB was associated with advanced brain aging. We included a total of 330 participants, divided based on self-reported history of SDB, and matched across diagnoses for age, sex and presence of the Apolipoprotein E4 allele, from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Gray-matter volume was measured using voxel-wise morphometry and group differences in terms of SDB, cognitive status, and their interaction were assessed. Further, using an age-prediction model fitted on gray-matter data of external datasets, we predicted study participants' age from their structural images. Cognitive decline and advanced age were associated with lower gray matter volume in various regions, particularly in the bilateral temporal lobes. Brains age was well predicted from the morphological data in HCs and, as expected, elevated in MCI and particularly in AD subjects. However, there was neither a significant difference between regional gray matter volume in any diagnostic group related to the SDB status, nor in SDB-by-cognitive status interaction. Moreover, we found no difference in estimated chronological age gap related to SDB, or by-cognitive status interaction. Contrary to our hypothesis, we were not able to find a general or a diagnostic-dependent association of SDB with either gray-matter volumetric or brain aging.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".