The use of hippocampal grading as a biomarker for preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal changes are associated with increased age and cognitive decline due to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). These associations are often observed only in the later stages of decline. This study examined if hippocampal grading, a method measuring local morphological similarity of the hippocampus to cognitively normal controls (NCs) and AD participants, is associated with cognition in NCs, subjective cognitive decline (SCD), early (eMCI), late (lMCI), and AD. A total of 1620 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants were examined (495 NC, 262 eMCI, 545 lMCI, and 318 AD) because they had baseline MRIs and Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-13) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. In a sub-analysis, NCs with episodic memory scores (as measured by Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, RAVLT) were divided into those with subjective cognitive decline (SCD+; 103) and those without (SCD-; 390). Linear regressions evaluated the influence of hippocampal grading on cognition in preclinical and prodromal AD. Lower global cognition, as measured by increased ADAS-13, was associated with hippocampal grading: NC (p < .001), eMCI (p < .05), lMCI (p < .05), and AD (p = .01). Lower global cognition as measured increased CDR-SB was associated with hippocampal grading in lMCI (p < .05) and AD (p < .001). Lower RAVLT performance was associated with hippocampal grading in SCD- (p < .05) and SCD+ (p < .05). These findings suggest that hippocampal grading is associated with global cognition in NC, eMCI, lMCI, and AD. Early changes in episodic memory during pre-clinical AD are associated with changes in hippocampal grading. Hippocampal grading may be sensitive to progressive changes early in the disease course.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".