Somatosensory dysfunction is masked by variable cognitive deficits across patients on the Alzheimer's disease spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is generally thought to spare primary sensory function; however, such interpretations have drawn from a literature that has rarely taken into account the variable cognitive declines seen in patients with AD. As these cognitive domains are now known to modulate cortical somatosensory processing, it remains possible that abnormalities in somatosensory function in patients with AD have been suppressed by neuropsychological variability in previous research. METHODS: In this study, we combine magnetoencephalographic (MEG) brain imaging during a paired-pulse somatosensory gating task with an extensive battery of neuropsychological tests to investigate the influence of cognitive variability on estimated differences in somatosensory function between biomarker-confirmed patients on the AD spectrum and cognitively-normal older adults. FINDINGS: We show that patients on the AD spectrum exhibit largely non-significant differences in somatosensory function when cognitive variability is not considered (p-value range: .020-.842). However, once attention and processing speed abilities are considered, robust differences in gamma-frequency somatosensory response amplitude (p < .001) and gating (p = .004) emerge, accompanied by significant statistical suppression effects. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that patients with AD exhibit insults to functional somatosensory processing in primary sensory cortices, but these effects are masked by variability in cognitive decline across individuals. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, USA; Fremont Area Alzheimer's Fund, USA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".