Structural Analysis of Brain Hub Region Volume and Cortical Thickness in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: A complex network of axonal pathways interlinks the human brain cortex. Brain networks are not distributed evenly, and brain regions making more connections with other parts are defined as brain hubs. Our objective was to analyze brain hub region volume and cortical thickness and determine the association with cognitive assessment scores in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included 11 patients (5 mild cognitive impairment; 6 dementia). All patients underwent neurological examination, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test scores were recorded. Scans with a 3T MRI scanner were done, and cortical thickness and volumetric data were acquired using Freesurfer 7.1.0 software. Results: By analyzing differences between the MCI and dementia groups, MCI patients had higher hippocampal volumes (p < 0.05) and left entorhinal cortex thickness (p < 0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between MoCA test scores and left hippocampus volume (r = 0.767, p < 0.01), right hippocampus volume (r = 0.785, p < 0.01), right precuneus cortical thickness (r = 0.648, p < 0.05), left entorhinal cortex thickness (r = 0.767, p < 0.01), and right entorhinal cortex thickness (r = 0.612, p < 0.05). Conclusions: In our study, hippocampal volume and entorhinal cortex showed significant differences in the MCI and dementia patient groups. Additionally, we found a statistically significant positive correlation between MoCA scores, hippocampal volume, entorhinal cortex thickness, and right precuneus. Although other brain hub regions did not show statistically significant differences, there should be additional research to evaluate the brain hub region association with MCI and dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".