Brain Total Creatine Differs Between Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) Subtypes and Correlates with Disease Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is comprised of three subtypes: logopenic (lvPPA), non-fluent (nfvPPA), and semantic (svPPA). We used magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure tissue-corrected metabolite levels in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and right sensorimotor cortex (SMC) from 61 PPA patients. We aimed to: 1) characterize subtype differences in metabolites; and 2) test for metabolite associations with symptom severity. tCr differed by subtype across the left IFG and right SMC. tCr levels were lowest in lvPPA and highest in svPPA. tCr levels predicted lvPPA versus svPPA diagnosis. Higher IFG tCr and lower Glx correlated with greater disease severity. As tCr is involved in brain energy metabolism, svPPA pathology might involve changes in specific cellular energy processes. Perturbations to cellular energy homeostasis in language areas may contribute to symptoms. Reduced cortical excitatory capacity (i.e., lower Glx) in language regions may also contribute to symptoms. Thus, tCr may be useful for differentiating between PPA subtypes, and both tCr and Glx might have utility in understanding PPA mechanisms and tracking progression. Highlights No prior work has examined differences in brain metabolite levels for PPA subtypes. Total creatine (tCr) levels were lowest in lvPPA and highest in svPPA. tCr levels differentiated lvPPA from svPPA diagnosis. Higher tCr and lower Glx in the left IFG correlated with greater disease severity. Changes in cellular energy and excitatory processes may relate to PPA pathology.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".