MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110775435 · doi:10.1002/alz.042814

Vascular risk and neuroimaging profile of MCI patients in the FINOMAIN Study

2020· article· en· W3110775435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Cristine Guevarra, Maria Fe Payno De Guzman, Francy Joy Galvez, Anthony Rodriguez, Raphael Louis B Citron, Justine Megan F. Yu, Vladimir Rivamonte, Thien Kieu Thi Phung, Jacqueline C. Dominguez

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrophyMedicineHyperintensityDementiaPopulationCognitive declineNeuroimagingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychologyMagnetic resonance imagingDiseasePsychiatryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The Asian population has been found to be at a higher risk of developing dementia compared to other races due to the high prevalence of vascular risk factors. Utilization of different modalities that manage these vascular risk factors is the focus of this study in order to prevent progression of dementia among senior citizens with mild cognitive impairment. Method Community‐based participants with MCI were recruited to join the FINOMAIN Study. They were divided into control and intervention groups, to which INDAK (dance therapy) shall be given. Both groups shall receive health education, management of non‐communicable diseases, and nutrition management. 72 participants shall undergo neuroimaging. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, and dyslipidemia were derived from clinical data and ancillary procedures. Small vessel disease markers (white matter hyperintensity, chronic lacunes, enlarged perivascular spaces, global atrophy, medial temporal lobe atrophy, frontotemporal atrophy, and posterior cortical atrophy) were documented through T1W, T2W, and FLAIR sequences on MRI and with the use scales like Fazekas, modified Staal’s score, and atrophy scores. All MRI assessments were performed by a single neurologist blinded to the clinical and cognitive measures. Cognitive measures had been done including tests for global cognition (MMSE‐P and MoCA‐P). Independent t‐test was used to show descriptive results of both groups. Result 42 subjects had completed MRI as of this writing (18 control group, 24 intervention group) with a mean age of 70 and mean years of education 9.48 years. Only 12% of the subpopulation are males. Markers of noncommunicable diseases did not show significant differences between groups. SVD burden measured through modified Staal’s score showed 2.50+0.985 for the control group and 2.33+0.917 for the intervention group (with a maximum score of 3 points) Fazekas scores for both groups showed moderate WMH burden (2.17+0.786 vs. 2.29+0.859; p = 0.125). MTA scores did not exceed the score of 2 in both groups (1.56+0.784 vs. 1.50+0.590; p = 0.794). Conclusion The subsample of the FINOMAIN study shows comparable demographics, clinical, and neuroimaging findings which is considered as a good pre‐intervention data. Small vessel disease burden in the neuroimaging is quite high in both study groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→