Coupling of the spatial distributions between sMRI and PET reveals the progression of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amyloid-beta (Aβ) deposition and altered brain structure are the most relevant neuroimaging biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, their spatial inconsistency was always confusing and misleading. Furthermore, the relationship between this spatial inconsistency and AD progression is unclear. The current study introduced a regional radiomics similarity network (R2SN) to map structural MRI and Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) images to study their cross-modal interregional coupling. A total of 790 participants (248 normal controls, 390 mild cognitive impaired patients, and 152 AD patients) with their structural MRI and PET images were studied. The results showed that global and regional R2SN coupling significantly decreased according to the severity of cognitive decline, from mild cognitive impairment to AD dementia. The global coupling patterns are discriminative between different APOE ε4, Aβ, and Tau subgroups. R2SN coupling was probed for relationships with neuropsychiatric measures and peripheral biomarkers. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that lower global coupling scores could reveal worse clinical progression of dementia. The R2SN coupling scores derived from the coupling between Aβ and atrophy over individual brain regions could reflect the specific pathway of AD progression, which would be a reliable biomarker for 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".