Incidental Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings and the Cognitive and Motor Performance in the Elderly: The Shanghai Changfeng Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frequently discovered incidental findings (IFs) from imaging observations are increasing. The IFs show the potential clues of structural abnormalities underlying cognitive decline in elders. Detecting brain IFs and their relationship with cognitive and behavioral functions helps provide the information for clinical strategies. METHODS: Five hundred and seventy-nine participants were recruited in the Shanghai Changfeng Study. All participants performed the demographic, biochemical, and cognitive functions and gait speed assessment and underwent the high-resolution multimodal magnetic resonance imaging scans. We calculated the detection rate of brain IFs. The association between cardiovascular risk factors and IFs and the associations between IFs and cognitive and motor functions were assessed using regression models. The relationships among gray matter volume, cognitive function, and gait speed were assessed with/without adjusting the IFs to evaluate the effects of potential IFs confounders. RESULTS: IFs were found in a total of 578 subjects with a detection rate of 99.8%. Age and blood pressure were the most significant cardiovascular risk factors correlated with IFs. IFs were found to be negatively associated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and gait speed. The gray matter volume was found to be positively correlated with the cognitive function without adjusting the white matter hyperintensity but not if adjusted. CONCLUSION: IFs are commonly found in the elderly population and related to brain functions. The adequate intervention of IFs related cardiovascular risk factors that may slow down the progression of brain function decline. We also suggest that IFs should be considered as confounding factors that may affect cognitive issues on the structural neuroimaging researches in aging or diseases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".