Association of β-Amyloid and Basal Forebrain With Cortical Thickness and Cognition in Alzheimer and Lewy Body Disease Spectra.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholinergic degeneration and β-amyloid contribute to brain atrophy and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer disease (AD) and Lewy body disease (LBD), but their relationship has not been comparatively evaluated.In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 28 normal controls (NC), 55 patients with AD mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 34 patients with AD dementia, 28 patients with LBD MCI, and 51 patients with LBD dementia. Participants underwent cognitive evaluation, brain MRI to measure the basal forebrain (BF) volume and global cortical thickness (CTh), and 18F-florbetaben (FBB) PET to measure the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). Using general linear models and path analyses, we evaluated the association of FBB-SUVR and BF volume with CTh or cognitive dysfunction in the AD spectrum (AD and NC) and LBD spectrum (LBD and NC), respectively. Covariates included age, sex, education, deep and periventricular white matter hyperintensities, intracranial volume, hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.BF volume mediated the association between FBB-SUVR and CTh in both the AD and LBD spectra, while FBB-SUVR was associated with CTh independently of BF volume only in the LBD spectrum. Significant correlation between voxel-wise FBB-SUVR and CTh was observed only in the LBD group. FBB-SUVR was independently associated with widespread cognitive dysfunction in both the AD and LBD spectra, especially in the memory domain (standardized beta [B] for AD spectrum = -0.60, B for LBD spectrum = -0.33). In the AD spectrum, BF volume was associated with memory dysfunction (B = 0.18), and CTh was associated with language (B = 0.21) and executive (B = 0.23) dysfunction. In the LBD spectrum, however, BF volume and CTh were independently associated with widespread cognitive dysfunction.There is a common β-amyloid-related degenerative mechanism with or without the mediation of BF in the AD and LBD spectra, while the association of BF atrophy with cognitive dysfunction is more profound and there is localized β-amyloid-cortical atrophy interaction in the LBD spectrum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".