Reduced cortical thickness in World Trade Center responders with cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recent reports suggest that World Trade Center (WTC) responders are at increased risk for cognitive impairment (CI). The current study utilized neuroimaging to determine whether WTC responders with CI have reduced cortical thickness (CTX). Method WTC responders (N=99) with and without CI, recruited from an epidemiologic study of cognitive aging among WTC responders, participated in a neuroimaging study that included a T1‐MPRAGE protocol. CTX was computed in 34 Desikan‐Killiany atlas regions of interest (ROIs). Regional CTX between CI and non‐CI responders were compared using t‐tests and reported using Cohen’s D, and whole‐brain surface‐based morphometry using threshold‐free cluster analysis. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine possible associations of CTX with symptoms of PTSD and/or severity of WTC exposure. Analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR = 0.05). Results Participants were aged 55.84 years on average, and 47 had CI as determined by clinical mental status examination using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA≤20). When compared to unimpaired responders, responders with CI had reduced mean whole‐brain CTX (P = 0.002). Region‐based analyses identified reduced CTX in 21/34 bilateral ROIs (D = ‐0.60) with the largest effects centered in the precentral gyrus (D = ‐0.74, P = 0.007). Surface‐based morphometry revealed that CTX was reduced across large parts of the frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes, all of which remained significant following adjustment for multiple comparisons. While more regions were identified as reduced in responders with both PTSD and CI (18 versus 9 ROIs in responders with PTSD and CI versus CI alone respectively), sensitivity analyses were not able to distinguish CI with PTSD as compared to CI alone. Conclusions Results from structural imaging revealed that WTC responders with CI had reduced cortical thickness across multiple brain regions including but not limited to those commonly affected by Alzheimer’s disease. This study represents the first neuroimaging study investigating CTX as an indicator of CI in WTC responders at midlife.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".