Involvement of specific striatal subregion contributes to executive deficits in Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is growing evidence that the striatum plays a central role in cognitive dysfunction. However, it remains unclear whether and how the striatum contributes specifically to executive deficits in Alzheimer disease (AD). We sought to elucidate aberrations in the striatal subregion associated with executive function and its metabolic connectivity with the cortical regions to investigate its role in the pathogenesis of executive deficits in patients with AD. Methods: Patients with AD and healthy controls underwent a neuropsychological assessment battery, including assessment of executive function, and a hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) scan. We performed voxel-wise analyses of cerebral metabolism between patients and controls, focusing on the executive subregion of the striatum according to the Oxford–GSK–Imanova Striatal Connectivity Atlas. We assessed the correlation between the [ 18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose standardized uptake value ratio of the striatal executive subregion and clinical variables, and we analyzed seed-based metabolic connectivity of the striatal executive subregion with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using [ 18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. Results: We included 50 patients with AD and 33 controls in our analyses. The patterns of striatal hypometabolism in patients with AD were specific to executive and caudal motor subregions. Metabolic activity in the executive subregion of the striatum correlated negatively with the severity of executive dysfunction, as measured with the Trial-Making Test (TMT) part B and the difference score TMT B–A, and correlated positively with Digit Span (backward) and Verbal Fluency Test scales, particularly on the left side. Compared with controls, patients with AD showed reduced metabolic connectivity between striatal executive subregions and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Limitations: Our study was limited by small sample sizes and cross-sectional findings. Conclusion: Our findings show that patients with AD have impairments in the executive subregion of the striatum, and these deficits may be associated with a disconnection between the executive striatum and DLPFC, providing valuable insight into the pathogenesis of this disease.
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 | 0.000 |
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".