MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312088484 · doi:10.1002/alz.062026

Racial differences in white matter hyperintensity load in aging, MCI, and AD

2022· article· en· W4312088484 on OpenAlexaff
Cassandra Morrison, Mahsa Dadar, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalHyperintensityDementiaInternal medicineLeukoaraiosisDemographyMedicineGerontologyPsychologyDiseaseMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD), often measured using white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) is a pathological change to the brain that increases ones’ risk for both age‐related cognitive decline and dementia. Several studies have noted that there is greater risk of CSVD in African Americans than in Caucasians. However, limited research has examined WMHs as a proxy of CSVD in an ethnically diverse sample. The goal of this research was to determine whether WMH load differs between African Americans and Caucasians. Methods Participants for this study were selected from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1, GO, 2, and 3). They were included if they had baseline WMH measurements and a baseline diagnosis. WMHs were segmented using a previously validated automatic technique (Dadar et al., 2018). A total of 91 African Americans and 1846 Caucasians were included in this analysis. To compare samples, 91 Caucasian participants were randomly matched to African Americans based on age, sex, education, and diagnosis. This random selection was completed 1000 times using bootstrap resampling. A linear mixed effects was completed to examine the influence of race on WMH load: WMH ∼ Race + Age + Sex + Education + Diagnosis. The 95% confidence limits of the t‐statistics distributions for the 1000 samples were examined to determine whether the differences were statistically significant. Results The following figure shows the t‐statistic, 95% confidence intervals, and p‐value distributions of the 1000 bootstrapped samples. The 95% confidence intervals are between t=‐3.06 and t=‐0.89 for total WMH load, indicating significance, as the limits do not include 0. Conclusions Accounting for age, sex, education, and diagnostic status, racial differences were observed for total WMH load. That is, African Americans had higher total WMH load than Caucasians. Future research should examine whether these findings are observed longitudinally and if they influence cognition in an ethnically diverse sample.

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 score0.012

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→