Strategic white matter hyperintensity locations for cognitive impairment: A multicenter lesion‐symptom mapping study in 3525 memory clinic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Impact of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on cognition likely depends on lesion location, but a comprehensive map of strategic locations is lacking. We aimed to identify these locations in a large multicenter study. METHODS: Individual patient data (n = 3525) from 11 memory clinic cohorts were harmonized. We determined the association of WMH location with attention and executive functioning, information processing speed, language, and verbal memory performance using voxel-based and region of interest tract-based analyses. RESULTS: WMH in the left and right anterior thalamic radiation, forceps major, and left inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus were significantly related to domain-specific impairment, independent of total WMH volume and atrophy. A strategic WMH score based on these tracts inversely correlated with performance in all domains. DISCUSSION: The data show that the impact of WMH on cognition is location-dependent, primarily involving four strategic white matter tracts. Evaluation of WMH location may support diagnosing vascular cognitive impairment. HIGHLIGHTS: We analyzed white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in 3525 memory clinic patients from 11 cohorts The impact of WMH on cognition depends on location We identified four strategic white matter tracts A single strategic WMH score was derived from these four strategic tracts The strategic WMH score was an independent determinant of four cognitive domains.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".