White matter hyperintensities and longitudinal cognitive decline in cognitively normal populations and across diagnostic categories: A meta‐analysis, systematic review, and recommendations for future study harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this paper is to improve the clinical interpretation of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) and provide an overarching summary of methodological approaches, allowing researchers to design future studies targeting current knowledge gaps. METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed investigating associations between baseline WMHs and longitudinal cognitive outcomes in cognitively normal populations, and populations with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and stroke. RESULTS: Baseline WMHs increase the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia across diagnostic categories and most consistently in MCI and post-stroke populations. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and domain-specific cognitive changes relating to strategic anatomical locations, such as frontal WMH and executive decline, represent important considerations. Meta-analysis reliability was assessed using multiple methods of estimation, and results suggest that heterogeneity in study design and reporting remains a significant barrier. DISCUSSION: Recommendations and future directions for study of WMHs are provided to improve cross-study comparison and translation of research into consistent clinical interpretation.
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 | 0.080 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".