The Use of F-18 FDG PET-Based Cognitive Reserve to Evaluate Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease, Independent of Educational Influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The optimal assessment of cognitive function, including the impact of education, is crucial in managing Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This study aimed to evaluate the role of cognitive reserve (CR), represented by the metabolic status of regions of the cerebral cortex, to evaluate cognitive decline considering the educational attainment of patients with AD. Materials and Methods: We used data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database, and selected 124 patients who underwent both baseline F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and F-18 florbetaben (FBB) positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Demographics, cognitive function variables (Clinical Dementia Rating—Sum of Boxes [CDR]; AD Assessment Scale 11/13 [ADAS11/13] Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]), and the average standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of cerebral cortex regions to those of the cerebellum were obtained from the data. The participants’ education level was divided into low and high education subgroups using four cut-offs of 12, 14, 16, and 18 years of educational attainment (G12, G14, G16, and G18, respectively). Demographic and cognitive function variables were compared between the two subgroups in each of the four groups, and their correlations with the SUVRs were evaluated. Results: There was no significant difference between the high and low education subgroups in each of the four groups, except for ADAS11/13 and MMSE in G14 and age in G16. The SUVRs of FDG PET (FDGSUVR) were significantly correlated with CDR, ADAS11/13, and MMSE scores. FDGSUVR showed different trajectories of neurodegeneration between the low and high education groups. Conclusions: FDGSUVR correlated moderately but significantly with neuropsychological test results, without being influenced by education level. Therefore, FDG PET may reflect CR independent of education level, and therefore could be a reliable tool to evaluate cognitive decline in AD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".