Do Epilepsy Patients with Cognitive Impairment Have Alzheimer’s Disease-like Brain Metabolism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although not classically considered together, there is emerging evidence that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and epilepsy share a number of features and that each disease predisposes patients to developing the other. Using machine learning, we have previously developed an automated fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) reading program (i.e., MAD), and demonstrated good sensitivity (84%) and specificity (95%) for differentiating AD patients versus healthy controls. In this retrospective chart review study, we investigated if epilepsy patients with/without mild cognitive symptoms also show AD-like metabolic patterns determined by the MAD algorithm. Scans from a total of 20 patients with epilepsy were included in this study. Because AD diagnoses are made late in life, only patients aged ≥40 years were considered. For the cognitively impaired patients, four of six were identified as MAD+ (i.e., the FDG-PET image is classified as AD-like by the MAD algorithm), while none of the five cognitively normal patients was identified as MAD+ (χ2 = 8.148, p = 0.017). These results potentially suggest the usability of FDG-PET in prognosticating later dementia development in non-demented epilepsy patients, especially when combined with machine learning algorithms. A longitudinal follow-up study is warranted to assess the effectiveness of this approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".