MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283745568 · doi:10.1101/2022.06.29.22277055

Impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms on limbic structures in age-related cognitive decline

2022· preprint· en· W4283745568 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas Ronat, Hoang Van-Tien, Alexandru Hanganu

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of California, DavisUniversité de MontréalUniversity of South FloridaCase Western Reserve UniversityWake Forest UniversityDartmouth CollegeParkinson CanadaOhio State University
KeywordsApathyIrritabilityPsychologyDepression (economics)AudiologyCognitionCingulum (brain)NeuroscienceCardiologyMedicineFractional anisotropyMagnetic resonance imagingDiffusion MRIRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are known to increase the risk of cognitive decline in aging. Several studies have investigated the brain substrates of these symptoms, reporting a broad involvement of the limbic regions. Participants Using the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database, we investigated 223 participants with normal cognition, 367 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 175 with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Measurements Neuropsychiatric symptoms were assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and MRIs were processed with FreeSurfer. We used a general linear model (FreeSurfer) and multivariate analysis of covariance (IBM SPSS software) to establish the associations between the severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms and morphometry in cortical and subcortical structures in each clinical group. Results The results outlined significant associations between cortical and subcortical structures and neuropsychiatric symptoms. In cognitively normal participants, only a positive association between nighttime behaviors and bilateral caudate nuclei volumes was found. In patients with MCI, agitation, depression, apathy and nighttime behaviors were respectively negatively associated with (i) left precentral and inferior frontal and inferior parietal volumes; (ii) left fusiform volume and area; (iii) right precentral thickness, left frontopolar area and bilateral ventral diencephalon volumes; (iv) right lingual thickness, whereas depression and nighttime behaviors were also respectively positively associated with right ventral diencephalon volume; and left temporal volume and area. In patients with Alzheimer’s disease, broader association were outlined between NPS severity and cortical structures notably agitation, apathy, irritability and nighttime behaviors outlined respectively positive associations with : (i) volumes in the right temporal regions and with surface area in the frontal region; (ii) the cortical thickness of the right pericalcarine region; (iii) volumes in the frontal, temporal and parietal regions; (iv) volume of the right cuneus region; whereas depression and apathy were also respectively negatively associated with the cortical thickness of the left parietal superior region; and cortical volume and area of the parietal regions. Conclusions These results showed that NPS have broad association patterns with associative brain structures and few associations with limbic structures. These associations were also dependent on the clinical stage of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→