Coupling analysis between functional and structural brain networks in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coupling between functional and structural brain networks is difficult to clarify due to the complicated alterations in gray matter and white matter for the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). A cohort of 112 participants [normal control group (NC, 62 cases), mild cognitive impairment group (MCI, 31 cases) and AD group (19 cases)], was recruited in our study. The brain networks of rsfMRI functional connectivity (rsfMRI-FC) and diffusion tensor imaging structural connectivity (DTI-SC) across the three groups were constructed, and their correlations were evaluated by Pearson's correlation analyses and multiple comparison with Bonferroni correction. Furthermore, the correlations between rsfMRI-SC/DTI-FC coupling and four neuropsychological scores of mini-mental state examination (MMSE), clinical dementia rating-sum of boxes (CDR-SB), functional activities questionnaire (FAQ) and montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) were inferred by partial correlation analyses, respectively. The results demonstrated that there existed significant correlation between rsfMRI-FC and DTI-SC (p < 0.05), and the coupling of rsfMRI-FC/DTI-SC showed negative correlation with MMSE score (p < 0.05), positive correlations with CDR-SB and FAQ scores (p < 0.05), and no correlation with MoCA score (p > 0.05). It was concluded that there existed FC/SC coupling and varied network characteristics for rsfMRI and DTI, and this would provide the clues to understand the underlying mechanisms of cognitive deficits of AD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".