Longitudinal Spatial Relationships Between Atrophy and Hypometabolism Across the Alzheimer’s Disease Continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The A/T/N framework allows for the assessment of pathology-specific markers of MRI-derived structural atrophy and hypometabolism on 18FDG-PET. However, how these measures relate to each other locally and distantly across pathology-defined A/T/N groups is currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the regions of association between atrophy and hypometabolism in A/T/N groups both within and across time points. METHODS: We examined multivariate multimodal neuroimaging relationships between MRI and 18FDG-PET among suspected non-Alzheimer's disease pathology (SNAP) (A-T/N+; n = 14), Amyloid Only (A+T-N-; n = 24) and Probable AD (A+T+N+; n = 77) groups. Sparse canonical correlation analyses were employed to model spatially disjointed regions of association between MRI and 18FDG-PET data. These relationships were assessed at three combinations of time points -cross-sectionally, between baseline visits and between month 12 (M-12) follow-up visits, as well as longitudinally between baseline and M-12 follow-up. RESULTS: In the SNAP group, spatially overlapping relationships between atrophy and hypometabolism were apparent in the bilateral temporal lobes when both modalities were assessed at the M-12 timepoint. Amyloid-Only subjects showed spatially discordant distributed atrophy-hypometabolism relationships at all time points assessed. In Probable AD subjects, local correlations were evident in the bilateral temporal lobes when both modalities were assessed at baseline and at M-12. Across groups, hypometabolism at baseline correlated with non-local, or distant, atrophy at M-12. CONCLUSION: These results support the view that local concordance of atrophy and hypometabolism is the result of a tau-mediated process driving 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".