Functional Redundancy of the Posterior Hippocampi, but not Anterior Hippocampi or Left Frontal Cortex, is Disrupted in Pathological Brain Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As prevalence rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, are projected to more than double by 2050, emphasis has been placed on early intervention strategies that target resilience mechanisms to delay or prevent the onset of clinical symptoms. Several neural mechanisms underlying brain resilience to AD have been proposed, including redundant neural connections between the posterior hippocampi (HC) and all other brain regions, and global functional connectivity of the left frontal cortex (LFC). It remains unknown, however, if regional redundancy of the HC and LFC underscores neural resilience in the presence of AD pathologies. From the ADNI database, 363 cognitively normal older adults (CN) (N = 220; 36% A β +) and patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) (N = 143; 51% A β +) were utilized. Regional redundancy was calculated from resting state fMRI data using a graph theoretical approach by summing the direct and indirect paths (path lengths=1-4) between each ROI and its 262 functional connections. The results showed that A β -status significantly disrupted posterior HC, but not anterior HC or LFC, redundancy. A β - groups showed higher redundancy of the bilateral posterior HC than A β +. In regard to redundancy-cognition relationships, higher posterior HC redundancy was related to better episodic memory performance, an effect which was primarily driven by the A β - group. Despite the positive relationship between posterior HC redundancy and cognition, we did not find compelling evidence that redundancy of the posterior HC serves in a resilience manner, as posterior HC redundancy did not moderate the potentially deleterious relationship between A β deposition and cognition. No relationships were found between anterior HC or LFC redundancy and cognitive performance. Together, these findings suggest that redundancy of the LFC does not underpin its role in resilience and that posterior HC redundancy may capture disruptions to network connectivity that occur as a result of A β deposition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".