Loss of corneal nerves and brain volume in mild cognitive impairment and dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study compared the capability of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain volumetry for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods In this cross‐sectional study, participants with no cognitive impairment (NCI), MCI, and dementia underwent assessment of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), MRI brain volumetry, and CCM. Results Two hundred eight participants with NCI (n = 42), MCI (n = 98), and dementia (n = 68) of comparable age and gender were studied. For MCI, the area under the curve (AUC) of CCM (76% to 81%), was higher than brain volumetry (52% to 70%). For dementia, the AUC of CCM (77% to 85%), was comparable to brain volumetry (69% to 93%). Corneal nerve fiber density, length, branch density, whole brain, hippocampus, cortical gray matter, thalamus, amygdala, and ventricle volumes were associated with cognitive impairment after adjustment for confounders (All P ’s < .01). Discussion The diagnostic capability of CCM compared to brain volumetry is higher for identifying MCI and comparable for dementia, and abnormalities in both modalities are associated with cognitive impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".