Corneal nerve loss predicts dementia in patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the utility of corneal nerve measures with brain volumetry for predicting progression to dementia in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: Participants with no cognitive impairment (NCI) and MCI underwent assessment of cognitive function, brain volumetry of thirteen brain structures, including the hippocampus and corneal confocal microscopy (CCM). Participants with MCI were followed up in the clinic to identify progression to dementia. RESULTS: Of 107 participants with MCI aged 68.4 ± 7.7 years, 33 (30.8%) progressed to dementia over 2.6-years of follow-up. Compared to participants with NCI (n = 12), participants who remained with MCI (n = 74) or progressed to dementia had lower corneal nerve measures (p < 0.0001). Progressors had lower corneal nerve measures, hippocampal, and whole brain volume (all p < 0.0001). However, CCM had a higher prognostic accuracy (72%-75% vs 68%-69%) for identifying individuals who progressed to dementia compared to hippocampus and whole brain volume. The adjusted odds ratio for progression to dementia was 6.1 (95% CI: 1.6-23.8) and 4.1 (95% CI: 1.2-14.2) higher with abnormal CCM measures, but was not significant for abnormal brain volume. INTERPRETATION: Abnormal CCM measures have a higher prognostic accuracy than brain volumetry for predicting progression from MCI to dementia. Further work is required to validate the predictive ability of CCM compared to other established biomarkers of dementia.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".