MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3113237553 · doi:10.1002/alz.042272

Intracranial stenosis predicts cognitive decline in a memory clinic cohort

2020· article· en· W3113237553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mervyn Jun Rui Lim, Chuen Seng Tan, Bibek Gyanwali, Christopher Chen, Saima Hilal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineMemory clinicDementiaCognitive declineCohortCognitionInternal medicineNeuropsychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive testPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Intracranial stenosis (ICS) is associated with cognitive impairment and dementia. It is suggested that ICS significantly increases the risk of progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. However, data examining the effects of ICS on cognitive decline are lacking. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of ICS on cognitive scores over a period of three years in a memory clinic cohort. Methods Participants were recruited from the National University Hospital memory clinic in Singapore. Data was collected using a standardized questionnaire, physical examination and 3T MRI at baseline. ICS was defined as arterial narrowing that exceeded 50% of the luminal diameter in any of the intracranial vessels. Cognitive functioning was measured at baseline and annually for 3 years using the mini‐mental state examination, Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and a detailed neuropsychological test battery that has been locally validated. Results 311 participants attended all three follow up visits. The mean age was 71.8 ± 7.8 years and 138 (44.4%) of participants were male. A total of 54 (17.4%) participants had intracranial stenosis. ICS modified the positive association between cognitive scores of two consecutive visits. Compared to persons with no ICS, persons with ICS showed a significant difference in association in MoCA (β [Yes]: 0.84 [95%CI: 0.79 ‐ 0.90] vs. β [No]: 0.91 [95%CI: 0.87 ‐ 0.95], p‐value = 0.007), global cognition (β [Yes]: 0.93 [95%CI: 0.88 ‐ 0.99] vs. β [No]: 1.00 [95%CI: 0.95 ‐ 1.04], p‐value = 0.037), executive function (β [Yes]: 0.85 [95%CI: 0.79 ‐ 0.90] vs. β [No]: 0.78 [95%CI: 0.74 ‐ 0.82], p‐value = 0.014), and memory (β [Yes]: 0.92 [95%CI: 0.87 ‐ 0.97] vs. β [No]: 0.98 [0.95 ‐ 1.00], p‐value = 0.016). These results remained significant after controlling for other risk factors and imaging markers. Conclusion ICS modified the positive association between cognitive scores of two consecutive visits where the association becomes less pronounced among persons with ICS for MoCA, global cognition and memory, but more pronounced for executive function. This suggests that ICS may be a useful indicator of vascular brain damage and may warrant consideration of anti‐atherosclerotic treatment in clinical trials.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→