Subcortical volumes in cerebral amyloid angiopathy compared with Alzheimer’s disease and controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Previous reports have suggested that patients with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) may harbor smaller white matter, basal ganglia, and cerebellar volumes compared to age-matched healthy controls (HC) or patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We investigated whether CAA is associated with subcortical atrophy. Methods The study was based on the multi-site Functional Assessment of Vascular Reactivity cohort and included 78 probable CAA (diagnosed according to the Boston criteria v2.0), 33 AD, and 70 HC. Cerebral and cerebellar volumes were extracted from brain 3D T1-weighted MRI using FreeSurfer (v6.0). Subcortical volumes, including total white matter, thalamus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum were reported as proportion (%) of estimated total intracranial volume. White matter integrity was quantified by the peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity. Results Participants in the CAA group were older (74.0 ± 7.0, female 44%) than the AD (69.7 ± 7.5, female 42%) and HC (68.8 ± 7.8, female 69%) groups. CAA participants had the highest white matter hyperintensity volume and worse white matter integrity of the three groups. After adjusting for age, sex, and study site, CAA participants had smaller putamen volumes (mean differences, −0.024% of intracranial volume; 95% confidence intervals, −0.041% to −0.006%; p = 0.005) than the HCs but not AD participants (−0.003%; −0.024 to 0.018%; p = 0.94). Other subcortical volumes including subcortical white matter, thalamus, caudate, globus pallidus, cerebellar cortex or cerebellar white matter were comparable between all three groups. Conclusion In contrast to prior studies, we did not find substantial atrophy of subcortical volumes in CAA compared to AD or HCs, except for the putamen. Differences between studies may reflect heterogeneity in CAA presenting syndromes or severity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".