White matter hyperintensity distribution differences in aging and neurodegenerative disease cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".