MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311999015 · doi:10.1002/alz.066715

Progressive white matter injury in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease is strongly associated with cerebral microbleeds and neurodegeneration

2022· article· en· W4311999015 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Shirzadi, Stephanie A. Schultz, Wai‐Ying Wendy Yau, Nelly Joseph‐Mathurin, Kejal Kantarci, Gregory M. Preboske, Clifford R. Jack, Martin R. Farlow, Anne M. Fagan, Jason Hassenstab, Mathias Jucker, John C. Morris, Chengjie Xiong, Celeste M. Karch, Colleen Fitzpatrick, Allan I. Levey, Brian A. Gordon, Peter W. Schofield, Stephen Salloway, Richard J. Perrin, Eric McDade, Johannes Levin, Carlos Cruchaga, Ricardo Allegri, Nick C. Fox, Alison Goate, Neill R. Graff‐Radford, Robert Koeppe, James M. Noble, Helena C. Chui, Sarah Berman, Hiroshi Mori, Raquel Sánchez‐Valle, Jae‐Hong Lee, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tammie L.S. Benzinger, Hamid R. Sohrabi, Ralph N. Martins, Aaron P. Schultz, Randall J. Bateman, Keith A. Johnson, Reisa A. Sperling, Steven M. Greenberg, Jasmeer P. Chhatwal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensityMedicineWhite matterCardiologyInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingCerebral amyloid angiopathyPathologyDiseaseDementiaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background White matter (WM) injury visible on MRI is a common finding in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and is often attributed to small vessel ischemic changes secondary to increased systemic vascular risk. Increased WM injury has been associated with the progression of Autosomal Dominant AD (ADAD), though ADAD pathogenic variant carriers are relatively young and may not have elevated vascular risk factors. We hypothesized that WM injury in ADAD may reflect worsening of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and neurodegeneration. Here we examine this hypothesis using cross‐sectional and longitudinal data from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network observational study (DIAN). Method MRI data from ADAD pathogenic variant carriers (n=223) and non‐carriers (n=136) were used in the present study (Table 1). We extracted FreeSurfer‐based WM lesion (WML) volume from T1‐weighted images (hypointensities). Cortical microbleed (CMB) burden was assessed visually on susceptibility weighted/T2*‐weighted gradient echo images by experienced radiologists (blineded to the mutation status) at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Linear regression models compared WML volume at baseline in people with and without CMB. Linear mixed effect models assessed the relationships between longitudinal WML and both CMBs and FreeSurfer‐based total gray matter (GM) volume. Models were corrected for age and estimated years to symptom onset (EYO). Result Greater baseline WML volume was seen in ADAD carriers vs. non‐carriers, particularly close to the age of estimated symptom onset. Baseline WML volume was greater in carriers with CMBs compared to those without (t=2.9, p=0.003, Figure 1). Longitudinal increase in WML amongst ADAD pathogenic variant carriers with CMBs was estimated to be 214 mm3/year greater than that amongst carriers without CMBs (t=4.1, p<0.001, Figure 2). Independent of this CMB effect, decreasing GM volume was strongly associated with increasing longitudinal WML volume (t=‐6.2, p<0.001, Figure 3). Similar analyses in the non‐carrier group yielded no significant findings. Conclusion Consistent with prior reports, WML volume was increased in ADAD pathogenic variant carriers. However, the results here suggest WML in ADAD may not solely be due to small vessel ischemic changes, but rather may be a result of worsening CAA and more rapid neurodegeneration.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207