MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210504327 · doi:10.1002/alz.055145

No evidence of decreased perfusion or blood‐brain barrier leakiness in later life depression

2021· article· en· W4210504327 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey I. Sinclair, Asher Mohr, Gustavo Turecki, Seth Love

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLate life depressionDepression (economics)DementiaInternal medicineMedicineVascular dementiaPsychologyPathologyCardiologyHippocampal formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Depression and dementia are both common diseases. Although new cases of depression are more common in younger adults there is a second peak at the age of 50 years suggesting a different pathological process. Late-life depression (LLD) is associated with dementia. However, it remains unclear whether depression represents a dementia prodrome or is a true risk factor for its development. LLD is thought to have a vascular component and this may be a possible link between depression and dementia. We hypothesised that later-life depression is a prodromal manifestation of dementia and would therefore be associated with more AD, and/or ischaemic brain abnormalities than are present in earlier-life depression or in age- and sex-matched controls. Method We assessed post-mortem orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex from 145 individuals in 4 groups: 28 18-50-year-olds with depression, 30 older individuals (ages 51-90) with depression, 28 with early AD (Braak tangle stages III-IV) and 57 matched controls (17 early-life, 42 later-life). Levels of Aβ, phospho-tau and α-synuclein were assessed by immunohistochemistry and ELISA. To quantify chronic ischaemia, VEGF, MAG and PLP1 were measured by ELISA. To assess pericyte damage, PDGFRB was measured by ELISA. For blood-brain barrier leakiness, JAM-A, claudin 5 and fibrinogen were measured by ELISA and the ratio of ICAM1:collagen IV assessed by immunohistochemistry. Result There was no evidence of chronic cerebral hypoperfusion or increased Aβ in either depression group. There was also no indication of pericyte damage or increased blood-brain barrier leakiness in the OFC in the depression groups Conclusion Contrary to some previous findings, we have not found evidence of impaired vascular function or increased Aβ in LLD. These results suggest that it is a risk factor for dementia rather than an early manifestation of AD or a consequence of cerebral vascular insufficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→