MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4367597246 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207298

Revealing Individual Neuroanatomical Heterogeneity in Alzheimer Disease Using Neuroanatomical Normative Modeling

2023· article· en· W4367597246 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Serena Verdi, Seyed Mostafa Kia, Keir Yong, Duygu Tosun, Jonathan M. Schott, André F. Marquand, James H. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechBritish Heart FoundationIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity College LondonU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBrain Research UKWeston Brain InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationBioClinicaBiogenPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationAlzheimer's SocietyBristol-Myers SquibbMedical Research CouncilMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsParahippocampal gyrusTemporal lobeNeuropsychologyPsychologyNeuroimagingAlzheimer's diseaseCognitionNeuroscienceAudiologyMedicineDiseasePathologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alzheimer’s disease is clinically heterogeneous, in symptom profiles, progression rates and outcomes. This clinical heterogeneity is linked to underlying neuroanatomical heterogeneity. To explore this, we employed the emerging technique of neuroanatomical normative modelling to index regional patterns of variability in cortical thickness in individual patients from the large multi-site Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We aimed to characterise individual differences and outliers in cortical thickness in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, people with mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal controls. Furthermore, we assessed the relationships between cortical thickness heterogeneity and cognitive function, amyloid-beta, tau, ApoE genotype. Finally, we examined whether individual neuroanatomical normative maps were predictive of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. Data on cortical thickness from the 148 brain regions of the Destrieux FreeSurfer atlas was obtained from T1-weighted MRI scans of 1492 participants scanned at 62 different sites. A neuroanatomical normative model was developed to index normal cortical thickness distributions using a separate healthy reference dataset (n= 33,072), employing hierarchical Bayesian regression to predict cortical thickness per region using age and sex. These regional normative models were then fine-tuned to the ADNI dataset after which cortical thickness z-scores per region were calculated, resulting in a z-score ‘map’ for each participant. Regions with z-scores < -1.96 were classified as outliers. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a median of 12 outlier regions out of a possible 148. Individual patterns of outlier regions were highly variable, with the highest overlap in the parahippocampal gyrus at only 47% of patients. For 62 regions, over 90% of these patients had cortical thicknesses within the normal range. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease had significantly more outlier regions than people with mild cognitive impairment or controls [ F (2, 1022) = 95.39), P = 2.0 x ×10 −16 ]. They were also statistically more dissimilar to each other than were people with mild cognitive impairment or cognitive normal controls [ F (2, 1024) = 209.42, P = 2.2×10 −16 ]. Having a greater number of outlier regions was associated with worse cognitive function, CSF protein concentrations and an increased risk of converting from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease within three years (HR =1.028, 95% CI[1.016,1.039], P =1.8 ×10 −16 ). Individualised normative maps of cortical thickness highlight the heterogeneity of Alzheimer’s effects on the brain. Regional outlier estimates have the potential to be a marker of disease and could be used to track an individual’s disease progression or treatment response in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→