Hippocampo-Horn Percentage and Parietal Atrophy Score for Easy Visual Assessment of Brain Atrophy on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early- and Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) visual scales of brain atrophy are important for differential diagnosis of dementias in routine clinical practice. Atrophy patterns in early- and late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be different according to some studies. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess brain atrophy patterns in early- and late-onset AD using our recently developed simple MRI visual scales and evaluate their reliability. METHODS: We used Hippocampo-horn percentage (Hip-hop) and Parietal Atrophy Score (PAS) to compare mediotemporal and parietal atrophy on brain MRI among 4 groups: 26 patients with early-onset AD, 21 younger cognitively normal persons, 32 patients with late-onset AD, and 36 older cognitively normal persons. Two raters scored all brain MRI to assess reliability of the Hip-hop and PAS. Brain MRIs were obtained from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. RESULTS: The patients with early-onset AD had significantly more pronounced mediotemporal and also parietal atrophy bilaterally compared to the controls (both p < 0.01). The patients with late-onset AD had significantly more pronounced only mediotemporal atrophy bilaterally compared to the controls (p < 0.000001), but parietal lobes were the same. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of both visual scales Hip-hop and PAS were almost perfect in all cases (weighted-kappa value ranged from 0.90 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: While mediotemporal atrophy detected using Hip-hop is universal across the whole AD age spectrum, parietal atrophy detected using PAS is worth rating only in early-onset AD. Hip-hop and PAS are very reliable MRI visual scales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".