MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293801824 · doi:10.1016/j.ahr.2022.100098

EEG coherence as a marker of functional connectivity disruption in Alzheimer's disease

2022· article· en· W4293801824 on OpenAlexaff
Dina Rodinskaia, Crystal Radinski, Jake Labuhn

Bibliographic record

VenueAging and Health Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyDementiaNeuroscienceNeurophysiologyPsychologyCognitive impairmentDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)CognitionAudiologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progressive deterioration of connectivity between neurons is a neurophysiological hallmark of brain ageing and has been linked to the severity of dementia. We explored the possibility of utilizing electroencephalographic evidence of functional connectivity disruption as a potential marker of Alzheimer's disease. This study examined group differences in EEG coherence within global cortical networks at rest and during executive challenges among patients with Alzheimer's dementia, individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and healthy controls. Four promising EEG coherence markers were identified as (i) F3-F4 Beta in visual-spatial orientation task ( p = 0.019), (ii) P7-P8 Beta in writing task ( p = 0.001), (iii) T7-T8 Gamma in speech understanding task ( p = 0.008) and (iv) O1-O2 Alpha in space orientation task ( p = 0.020). More research is needed to identify the sensitivity and specificity of the markers.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging and Health ResearchSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207