Regional Comparison of Imaging Biomarkers in the Striatum between Early- and Late-onset Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Striatal changes in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not fully understood yet. We compared structural and functional image differences in the striatum between patients with early onset AD (EOAD) and late onset AD (LOAD) to investigate whether EOAD harbors autosomal dominant AD like imaging findings. The clinical, neuropsychological and neuroimaging biomarkers of 77 probable AD patients and 107 elderly subjects with normal cognition (NC) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)-2 dataset were analyzed. Enrolled each subject completed a 3-Tesla MRI, baseline 18F-FDG-PET, and baseline 18F-AV-45 (Florbetapir) amyloid PET studies. AD patients were divided into two groups based on the onset age of clinical symptoms (EOAD <65 yrs; LOAD ≥65 yrs). A standardized uptake value ratio of the striatum and subcortical structures was obtained from both amyloid and FDG-PET scans. Structural MR imaging analysis was conducted using a parametric boundary description protocol, SPHARM-PDM. Of the 77 AD patients, 18 were EOAD and 59 were LOAD. Except for age of symptom onset, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in demographics and detailed neuropsychological test results. 18F-AV-45 amyloid PET showed marked β-amyloid accumulation in the bilateral caudate nucleus and left pallidum in the EOAD group. Intriguingly, the caudate nucleus and putamen showed maintained glucose metabolism in the EOAD group compared to the LOAD group. Our image findings in the striatum of EOAD patients suggest that sporadic EOAD may share some pathophysiological changes noted in autosomal dominant AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".