MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380883752 · doi:10.1002/alz.064849

Cognitive function and brain structure correlates in individuals with subjective cognitive decline: Voxel‐based morphometry results from a lifestyle intervention to prevent Alzheimer’s disease (PENSA study)

2023· article· en· W4380883752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thaïs Lorenzo, Aida Cuenca‐Royo, Grégory Operto, Carles Falcón, Albert Puig‐Pijoan, Laura Forcano, Iris Piera, Anna Boronat, Iva Knezevic, Ilario De Toma, Natalia Soldevila‐Domenech, Karine Fauria, José Luís Molinuevo, Juan Domingo Gispert, Rafael de la Torre

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive declineBoston Naming TestHyperintensityCognitionPsychologyNeuropsychologyStroop effectAudiologyVerbal fluency testEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceTrail Making TestMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMemory spanDigit symbol substitution testDementiaMedicinePsychiatryDiseaseWorking memoryMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyCognitive impairmentPlaceboRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Interventions based on the modification of several lifestyle factors have provided promising results to maintain cognitive function in late/middle‐aged individuals at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Framed under the WW‐FINGERS network, the PENSA clinical trial is focused on the prevention of cognitive decline in individuals with subjective cognitive decline who are also APOEε4 carriers. It consists of a 12‐month multimodal lifestyle intervention supplemented with EGCG, a natural flavonoid from green tea. In this study, we looked for the brain structure correlates of cognitive performance for PENSA participants at baseline. Methods One hundred thirty‐one (N = 131) participants of the PENSA study at baseline [Table 1] with valid T1w, T2w and FLAIR MRI scans were included. They underwent a neuropsychological assessment battery consisting of the modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study ‐ Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (ADCS‐PACC‐Plus‐exe) that includes MMSE, Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT), Delayed Recall Logical Memory (DRLM), Five Digits Test, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and Stroop. Additional cognitive measurements were obtained from semantic verbal fluency (SVF), Boston Naming Test, digit span subtest, visual puzzle subtest (VPT) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. FLAIR images were used to segment white matter hyperintensities and perform a lesion filling procedure in T1w and T2w images. These two later modalities were then entered into a multimodal segmentation in the SPM12 voxel‐based morphometry pipeline. Associations between test scores and grey matter volumes (GMv) were sought (p<0.001) including age, sex, education, and total intracranial volume as confounders. Results A positive association was found (p uncorr <0.001; k>200) between GMv and ADCS‐PACC‐Plus‐exe composite [Figure 1] in the bilateral hippocampus, amygdala, entorhinal and parahippocampal gyri. Additionally, positive correlations (p uncorr <0.001; k>200) were found between GMv and FCSRT, DRLM, VPT and SVF tests albeit in less consistent regional patterns. No associations were found between GMv and the remaining tests. Conclusion In a sample at high risk of developing AD, the ADCS‐PACC‐Plus‐exe composite is associated with GMv in brain areas known to be affected in AD. These results suggest that the ADCS‐PACC‐Plus‐exe composite might be sensitive to detect subtle cognitive changes in cognitively unimpaired at‐risk individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207