MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286630390 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.859873

Longitudinal Intraindividual Cognitive Variability Is Associated With Reduction in Regional Cerebral Blood Flow Among Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarker-Positive Older Adults

2022· article· en· W4286630390 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sophia Holmqvist, Kelsey R. Thomas, Einat K. Brenner, Emily C. Edmonds, Amanda T. Calcetas, Lauren Edwards, Maria Bordyug, Katherine J. Bangen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOServierEisaiJanssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research And DevelopmentNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenBioClinicaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaH. Lundbeck A/SU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiomarkerMedicineCerebral blood flowNeuropsychologyDementiaMagnetic resonance imagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCardiologyInternal medicineNeuroimagingCerebrospinal fluidCognitive declineAlzheimer's diseaseOncologyDiseasePsychologyCognitionRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraindividual variability (IIV) across neuropsychological measures within a single testing session is a promising marker predictive of cognitive decline and development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We have previously shown that greater IIV is cross-sectionally associated with reduced cerebral blood flow (CBF), but not with cortical thickness or brain volume, in older adults without dementia who were amyloid beta (Aβ) positive. However, there is little known about the association between change in IIV and CBF over time. Therefore, we examined 12-month longitudinal change in IIV and interactions of IIV and AD biomarker status on changes in regional CBF. Fifty-three non-demented Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants underwent lumbar puncture to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) at baseline and neuropsychological testing and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams at baseline and 12-month follow-up evaluation. IIV was calculated as the intraindividual standard deviation across 6 demographically-corrected neuropsychological measures. Pulsed arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI was acquired to quantify CBF and FreeSurfer-derived a priori CBF regions of interest (ROIs) were examined. AD biomarker positivity was determined using a published CSF p-tau/Aβ ratio cut-score. Change scores were calculated for IIV, CBF, and mean neuropsychological performance from baseline to 12 months. Hierarchical linear regression models showed that after adjusting for age and gender, there was a significant interaction between IIV change and biomarker-positivity (p-tau/Aβ+) for change in entorhinal and hippocampal CBF but not for the other ROIs. Specifically, increases in IIV were associated with reductions in entorhinal and hippocampal CBF among individuals who were biomarker-positive ( n = 21). In contrast, there were no significant associations between change in IIV and CBF among those who were biomarker-negative ( n = 32). Findings remained similar when analyses were performed adjusting for change in mean level of neuropsychological performance. Changes in IIV may be sensitive to changes in regional hypoperfusion in AD-vulnerable regions among AD biomarker-positive individuals, above and beyond demographics and mean neuropsychological performance. These findings provide further evidence supporting IIV as a potential marker of cerebrovascular brain changes in individuals at risk for dementia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207