MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111624975 · doi:10.1002/alz.039619

Mapping the contribution of clinical risk factors and MRI‐based imaging features to cognitive impairment in community elders

2020· article· en· W3111624975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Zhao, Brian Yiu, Bonnie Lam, J. Matthijs Biesbroek, Yishan Luo, Lin Shi, Vincent Mok, Adrian Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHyperintensityDiffusion MRIMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryCognitionFeature selectionNeuroimagingMagnetic resonance imagingMedicinePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseComputer scienceRadiologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is still not clear about the clinical risk factors of cognitive impairment in community elderlies. Although many studies have investigated the association of imaging features with cognitive impairment, none has applied location‐specific information for the prediction. Method We included 609 stroke‐ and dementia‐free elderlies with comprehensive clinical information collected (Table 1). T1‐weighted (T1W) images, T2‐weighted images, FLAIR and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) were acquired. T1W images were processed with AccuBrain to quantify brain volumes of anatomical structures (Table 2). White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) were automatically segmented using AccuBrain and normalized to standard space for the quantification of regional burden. Other small vessel disease features, including lacunes, cerebral microbleed and enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS) were visually rated (Table 2). Peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD) was calculated on DTI sequence. These vascular imaging features and clinical variables were used predict Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) with support vector regression (SVR). We compared three prediction models here: (1) with clinical variables as predictors, (2) imaging features as predictors, and (3) the combination of clinical and imaging features as predictors. Different feature selection methods were attempted. Further statistical inference was performed with permutations to investigate independent contributing factors. Result Participant characteristics were shown in Table 3. When predicting MoCA or SDMT (Figure 1), Model 3 performed no better than Model 2 or 1, and Model 1 performed better than Model 2 (p<0.001). In addition to age and education level, only average sitting systolic blood pressure presented significant independent contribution to MoCA, while for SDMT, no clinical variables had significant independent contribution (Table 4 and 5). The imaging features that had significant independent contribution included EPVS in basal ganglia, WMH volume in left superior corona radiata, and atrophy of right parietal lobe and insular for MoCA, and right insular atrophy for SDMT. Conclusion Combining clinical variables and MRI‐based features did not achieve better prediction of cognitive impairment than using either type of features alone. The highlighted predictors that presented independent contribution to MoCA or SDMT may help to understand the cognitive risk factors in community elderlies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus→French-language works237,207→