P4‐130: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS MOCA COGNITIVE DOMAIN ASSESSMENTS AND REGIONAL BRAIN FDG‐PET HYPOMETABOLISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive deficiencies correlate with regional brain hypometabolism. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely utilized for MCI. Subscores of the MoCA were found to be strong predictors of conversion from MCI to AD over 18 months. We examined correlations between total MoCA, its subtest scores and [18F]FDG-PET, and the predictive value of MoCA subtest scores for global hypometabolism two years later. A total of 160 subjects (CN 54, MCI 128, AD 31) were included from the ADNI dataset. MoCA and FDG-PET scan were obtained in the same individuals not more than 6 months apart at the baseline and two-year follow-up visits. MoCA assessment was classified into 6 subtests, language index score (LIS), memory index score (MIS), attention index score (AIS), visuospatial index score (VIS), executive index score (EIS) and orientation index score (OIS). Voxel-based SUVR maps for [18F]FDG were calculated using pons as reference region. Global SUV was estimated as the median SUVR value obtained using masks encompassing fronto-temporo-parietal regions. Voxel-based and regression analysis were conducted between total MoCA, subtest scores and [18F]FDG. Each correlation was corrected for age, gender and education. Demographics in Table 1. The associations between total MoCA score and [18F]FDG showed scattered correlations on temporal, frontal and parietal cortices (Figure 1). LIS was associated with [18F]FDG on Broca's area, premotor cortex and inferior frontal gyrus; MIS, with hippocampus and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC); EIS, with hippocampus and medial temporal gyrus; OIS and AIS, with all cortical area, except occipital cortex, brain stem and cerebellum; VIS, with a small area on inferior parietal and inferior temporal cortex. Comparing between groups, CN and AD groups showed correlation between total MoCA scores and [18F]FDG in the frontal area, with the AD group showing a higher correlation. In contrast, MCI group showed scattered correlation in frontal, temporal, precuneus and PCC. Total MoCA scores or subtest scores at baseline did not predict global hypometabolism two years later in that dataset.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".