MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183779008 · doi:10.3390/brainsci11070943

Brain Structural Connectivity Differences in Patients with Normal Cognition and Cognitive Impairment

2021· article· en· W3183779008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nauris Zdanovskis, Ardis Platkājis, Andrejs Kostiks, Guntis Karelis, Oļesja Grigorjeva

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffusion MRIDementiaPsychologyCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMagnetic resonance imagingAudiologyNeuroimagingNeuroscienceCognitive impairmentMedicinePathologyDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in magnetic resonance imaging, particularly diffusion imaging, have allowed researchers to analyze brain connectivity. Identification of structural connectivity differences between patients with normal cognition, cognitive impairment, and dementia could lead to new biomarker discoveries that could improve dementia diagnostics. In our study, we analyzed 22 patients (11 control group patients, 11 dementia group patients) that underwent 3T MRI diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) scans and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. We reconstructed DTI images and used the Desikan-Killiany-Tourville cortical parcellation atlas. The connectivity matrix was calculated, and graph theoretical analysis was conducted using DSI Studio. We found statistically significant differences between groups in the graph density, network characteristic path length, small-worldness, global efficiency, and rich club organization. We did not find statistically significant differences between groups in the average clustering coefficient and the assortativity coefficient. These statistically significant graph theory measures could potentially be used as quantitative biomarkers in cognitive impairment and dementia diagnostics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207