MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3113269757 · doi:10.1002/alz.041161

White matter hyperintensities, gray matter atrophy and cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease

2020· article· en· W3113269757 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Dadar, Myrlene Gee, Simon Duchesne, Richard Camicioli

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQuest University CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityAtrophyInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingCohortPsychologyCardiologyWhite matterFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryGrey matterMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background MRI features of grey matter atrophy and White Matter Hyperintensities (WMHs) of cerebrovascular origin have been linked to cognitive symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD) (Yau 2018, Dadar 2018). Here we assess the relationship between WMH burden, gray matter atrophy in the Hippocampi and cognitive symptoms in PD. Method Data included 50 PD patients and 45 age‐matched controls with T1‐weighted and FLAIR scans at baseline, month18, and month36. WMHs were segmented using T1‐weighted and FLAIR images and a random forests classifier (Dadar et al. 2017, Figure 1.a). SNIPE (Scoring by Nonlocal Image Patch Estimator) was used to measure Alzheimer’s‐disease‐like atrophy patterns in the left and right hippocampi (Figure 1.b, Coupé et al. 2019). The relationship between MRI features and clinical scores was assessed using mixed‐effects models: where Cohort denotes a categorical variable contrasting PD versus controls, and ID denotes the categorical random effects. The variables of interest were MRI‐Feature (implying an overall association between the MRI feature and clinical score of interest) and the interaction term Cohort:MRI‐Score (implying an additional PD‐specific impact of the MRI‐Feature on the Clinical‐Score). Log‐transformed WMH volumes and SNIPE grading in the left and right Hippocampi were used as MRI features. Total Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) was the dependent variable of interest reflecting cognitive performance. Result WMH load significantly increased with age in both groups (t=9.95, p<0.0001). We did not find a significant group difference in WMH volumes. We did not find a significant association between WMH load and Total DRS score in either group. Total DRS significantly decreased with age (t=‐2.23, p<0.04) and decrease in Hippocampal grading (tLeftHC=2.83, pRighHC=0.005, tLeftHC=2.55, pRighHC=0.01), with a marginally greater impact in PDs (Figure 2, tLeftHC=1.80, pRighHC=0.07, tLeftHC=1.58, pRighHC=0.10). Conclusion In our cohort, hippocampal atrophy was significantly associated with cognitive deficits in both controls and PD patients, with a slightly greater impact in the PD group. We did not observe an impact of vascular disease burden on cognitive performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→