MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210560950 · doi:10.1002/alz.052614

Within‐ and across‐network relationships between cortical atrophy and hypometabolism across A/T/N subgroups of the Alzheimer's disease continuum

2021· article· en· W4210560950 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Stocks, Karteek Popuri, Howard J. Rosen, Mirza Faisal Beg, Lei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrophyNeuroimagingPosterior cortical atrophyNeuroscienceNeurodegenerationAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeDefault mode networkPsychologyPathologyDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineDementiaFunctional connectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neurodegeneration caused by pathological protein aggregation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is reflected in cortical atrophy and glucose hypometabolism, measured with structural MRI and FDG‐PET, but how these disease processes relate to each other within and across brain networks remains unclear. We examine multimodal neuroimaging relationships within and between multiple large‐scale brain networks among CSF‐defined (i.e., amyloid, total tau, and p‐tau) “A/T/N” subgroups of AD. Method Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative subjects with CSF analysis, MRI and FDG‐PET: AD‐Continuum (A+(T or N ‐/+), N = 559), Suspected Non‐AD Pathologic Change (SNAP) (A‐(T or N+), N = 149), Normal (A‐T‐N‐, N = 179). T1‐MPRAGE scans underwent FreeSurfer processing to estimate cortical thickness, normalized 18FDG‐PET images were co‐registered and uptake values were projected onto corresponding cortical surface. Using a well‐validated atlas, MRI and FDG‐PET images were parcellated into 360 cortical “patches” corresponding to 12 cortical networks. Partial Pearson correlations were computed between the 360 patches of cortical thickness and FDG metabolism and displayed visually as heatmaps, organized by network. Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple comparisons. Result Limited significant correlations were seen in Normal subjects (Figure 1). Among SNAP subjects, positive within‐network correlations between atrophy and hypometabolism were found within the dorsal attention, frontoparietal and default‐mode networks (Figure 2). Across‐network relationships were also present with hypometabolism in the dorsal attention and frontoparietal networks associated with widespread cortical atrophy. In AD‐Continuum subjects, positive within‐network correlations between cortical atrophy and glucose hypometabolism were most frequent within the dorsal attention, default‐mode and posterior multimodal networks (Figure 3). Across‐network relationships were frequent with atrophy within the dorsal attention and default‐mode networks associated with widespread hypometabolism and hypometabolism within the dorsal attention, frontoparietal and default‐mode networks associated with widespread atrophy. Conclusion These findings suggest that, in both SNAP and AD‐Continuum subjects, local and distant relationships between cortical atrophy and hypometabolism are common, especially within regions known to be impacted by AD neuropathology (e.g., frontoparietal and default‐mode networks). SNAP subjects show fewer across‐network correlations as compared to AD‐Continuum, supporting the conclusion that tau aggregation drives local neurodegeneration while the relationships between amyloid and neurodegeneration are less region‐specific.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→