Association of Cerebral Microbleeds with Cognitive Decline: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) in cognitive impairment remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possible links between the presence, progression, number, and location of CMBs and cognition. METHODS: We assessed 792 subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who underwent both brain 3 Tesla MRI scans and cognitive testing. The association between CMBs and cognitive change was explored using linear mixed-effects models (LME). RESULTS: Presence and number of CMBs were associated with memory (β= -0.03, p = 0.015; β= -0.01, p = 0.003), executive function (β= -0.04, p = 0.010; β= -0.01, p = 0.014), and global cognitive function (β= -0.06, p = 0.025; β= -0.03, p < 0.001). Progression of CMBs showed significant negative associations with executive function (β= -0.05, p = 0.025) and global cognitive function (β= -0.12, p = 0.015). The relations with cognitive performance (memory, executive function and global cognitive function) were mainly driven by lobar CMBs (β= -0.03, p = 0.041; β= -0.04, p = 0.010; β= -0.07, p = 0.029, respectively), especially those located in temporal lobe (β= -0.08, p = 0.027; β= -0.13, p = 0.001; β= -0.26, p < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, white matter hyperintensities may mediate the association between CMBs and cognition. CONCLUSION: The presence, progression, number, and location of CMBs, especially those located in temporal lobe, are associated with cognitive decline. These findings suggest CMBs play a role in cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".