Interactions Between Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease on Structural Brain Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normative aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) propagation alter anatomical connections among brain parcels. However, the interaction between the trajectories of age- and AD-linked alterations in the topology of the structural brain network is not well understood. In this study, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets of 139 subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database were used to document their structural brain networks. The 139 participants consist of 45 normal controls (NCs), 37 with early mild cognitive impairment (EMCI), 27 with late mild cognitive impairment (LMCI), and 30 AD patients. All subjects were further divided into three subgroups based on their age (56-65, 66-75, and 71-85 years). After the structural connectivity networks were built using anatomically-constrained deterministic tractography, their global and nodal topological properties were estimated, including network efficiency, characteristic path length, transitivity, modularity coefficient, clustering coefficient, and betweenness. Statistical analyses were then performed on these metrics using linear regression, and one- and two-way ANOVA testing to examine group differences and interactions between aging and AD propagation. No significant interactions were found between aging and AD propagation in the global topological metrics (network efficiency, characteristic path length, transitivity, and modularity coefficient). However, nodal metrics (clustering coefficient and betweenness centrality) of some cortical parcels exhibited significant interactions between aging and AD propagation, with affected parcels including left superior temporal, right pars triangularis, and right precentral. The results collectively confirm the age-related deterioration of structural networks in MCI and AD patients, providing novel insight into the cross effects of aging and AD disorder on brain structural networks. Some early symptoms of AD may also be due to age-associated anatomic vulnerability interacting with early anatomic changes associated with AD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".