MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154118368 · doi:10.21037/qims-20-852

Associations between brain volumetry and relaxometry signatures and the Edmonton Frail Scale in frailty

2021· article· en· W3154118368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chunmei Li, Yu‐Hui Chen, Pu‐Yeh Wu, Bing Wu, Tao Gong, Hua Wang, Min Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRelaxometryMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineNuclear medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a geriatric condition characterized by a decreased reserve. The Edmonton frailty scale (EFS) has been widely used as an assessment tool in clinical practice. However, the brain's underlying pathophysiological changes in frailty and their associations with the EFS remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the associations between brain volumetry and relaxometry signatures and the EFS (and each domain score of the EFS) in frailty. METHODS: A total of 40 non-demented subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. Frailty assessment was performed for each subject according to the EFS. All subjects underwent synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (MAGnetic resonance image Compilation, MAGiC) and three-dimensional fast spoiled gradient-recalled echo (3D-FSPGR) T1-weighted structural image acquisitions on a 3.0 T MR scanner. Brain segmentation was performed based on quantitative values obtained from the MAGiC and 3D-FSPGR images. Volumetry and relaxometry of the global brain and regional gray matter (GM) were also obtained. The associations between the total EFS score (and the score of each domain) and the brain's volumetry and relaxometry were investigated by partial correlation while eliminating the effects of age. Multiple comparisons of regional GM volumetry and relaxometry analyses were controlled by false discovery rate (FDR) correction. All data were analyzed using the SPSS 13.0 statistical package (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). RESULTS: For global volumetry, significant correlations were found between multiple global volumetry parameters and the EFS, as well as the cognition score, functional independence score, nutrition score, and functional performance score (P<0.05). For global relaxometry, notable positive correlations were found between the T2 values of gray and white matter (WM) and the EFS (r=0.357, P=0.026; r=0.357, P=0.026, respectively). Significant correlations were also identified between the T2 value of GM, the T1, T2, and PD values of WM, and the cognition score (r=0.426, P=0.007; r=0.456, P=0.003; r=0.377, P=0.018; r=0.424, P=0.007, respectively), functional independence score (r=-0.392, P=0.014; r=-0.611, P<0.001; r=-0.367, P=0.022; r=-0.569, P<0.001, respectively), and functional performance score (r=0.337, P=0.036; r=0.472, P=0.002; r=0.354, P=0.027; r=0.376, P=0.018, respectively). For regional GM volumetry, multiple regions showed significant negative correlations with the EFS (P<0.05). Notable negative correlations were found between multiple regional GM volume and the functional independence score (P<0.05). For regional GM relaxometry, the T1 and T2 values of several regions showed significant negative correlations with the functional independence score (T1 value of caudate, r=-0.617, P<0.001; T2 value of insula, r=-0.510, P=0.015; T2 value of caudate, r=-0.633, P<0.001, respectively). No significant correlation was found between the domain scores of the EFS and regional GM PD values (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, brain volumetry and relaxometry signatures showed strong associations with the EFS and some EFS domain scores in frailty. These associations may reveal the possible underlying pathophysiology of the EFS and different domains of the EFS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207