Association between cortical thickness and distinct vascular cognitive impairment and dementia in patients with white matter lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? White matter lesions (WMLs) are a brain disease characterized by altered brain structural and functional connectivity, but findings have shown an inconsistent pattern: are there distinct cortical thickness changes in patients with WMLs subtypes? What is the main finding and its importance? Patients with WMLs with non-dementia vascular cognitive impairment and WMLs with vascular dementia showed distinct pathophysiology in cortical thickness. These neural correlates of WMLs should be considered in future treatment. ABSTRACT: The effect of cortical thickness on white matter lesions (WMLs) in patients with distinct vascular cognitive impairments is relatively unknown. This study investigated the correlation between cortical thickness and vascular cognitive manifestations. WML patients and healthy controls from Beijing Tiantan Hospital between 2014 and 2018 were included. The patients were further divided into two subgroups, namely WMLs with non-dementia vascular cognitive impairment (WML-VCIND) and WMLs with vascular dementia (WML-VaD) according to the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale and the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Changes in cortical thickness were calculated using FreeSurfer. Pearson's correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationship between cognitive manifestations and cortical thickness in WML patients. Forty-five WML patients and 23 healthy controls were recruited. The WML group exhibited significant difference in cortical thickness compared to the control group. Significantly decreased cortical thickness in the middle and superior frontal gyri, middle temporal gyrus, angular gyrus and insula was found in the WML-VaD versus WML-VCIND subgroup. Cortical thickness deficits of the left caudal middle frontal gyrus (r = 0.451, P = 0.002), left rostral middle frontal gyrus (r = 0.514, P < 0.001), left superior frontal gyrus (r = 0.410, P = 0.006), right middle temporal gyrus (r = 0.440, P = 0.003), right pars triangularis (r = 0.462, P = 0.002), right superior frontal gyrus (r = 0.434, P = 0.004) and right insula (r = 0.499, P = 0.001) were positively correlated with the MoCA score in WML patients. The specific pattern of cortical thickness deficits in the WML-VaD subgroup revealed the pathophysiology of WMLs, which should be considered in future treatment of WMLs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".