MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296070893 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103204

White matter hyperintensity distribution differences in aging and neurodegenerative disease cohorts

2022· article· en· W4296070893 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mahsa Dadar, Sawsan M. Mahmoud, Maryna Zhernovaia, Richard Camicioli, Josefina Maranzano, Simon Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer Society Research ProgramConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsHyperintensityDiseaseWhite matterMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPathologyMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are common magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in the aging population in general, as well as in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. They are known to exacerbate the cognitive deficits and worsen the clinical outcomes in the patients. However, it is not well-understood whether there are disease-specific differences in prevalence and distribution of WMHs in different neurodegenerative disorders. METHODS: Data included 976 participants with cross-sectional T1-weighted and fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRIs from the Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia (COMPASS-ND) cohort of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) with eleven distinct diagnostic groups: cognitively intact elderly (CIE), subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), vascular MCI (V-MCI), Alzheimer's dementia (AD), vascular AD (V-AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Lewy body dementia (LBD), cognitively intact elderly with Parkinson's disease (PD-CIE), cognitively impaired Parkinson's disease (PD-CI), and mixed dementias. WMHs were segmented using a previously validated automated technique. WMH volumes in each lobe and hemisphere were compared against matched CIE individuals, as well as each other, and between men and women. RESULTS: All cognitively impaired diagnostic groups had significantly greater overall WMH volumes than the CIE group. Vascular groups (i.e. V-MCI, V-AD, and mixed dementia) had significantly greater WMH volumes than all other groups, except for FTD, which also had significantly greater WMH volumes than all non-vascular groups. Women tended to have lower WMH burden than men in most groups and regions, controlling for age. The left frontal lobe tended to have a lower WMH burden than the right in all groups. In contrast, the right occipital lobe tended to have greater WMH volumes than the left. CONCLUSIONS: There were distinct differences in WMH prevalence and distribution across diagnostic groups, sexes, and in terms of asymmetry. WMH burden was significantly greater in all neurodegenerative dementia groups, likely encompassing areas exclusively impacted by neurodegeneration as well as areas related to cerebrovascular disease pathology.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207