Associations between hippocampal subfield volume and cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It is well demonstrated that hippocampal atrophy is associated with cognitive impairment. Existing studies have associated smaller hippocampal volumes with dementia, and hippocampal volume reduction has been established as a biomarker for the conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s Disease. Although some studies have examined correlations between hippocampal subfield volumes and cognitive domains such as memory, further research is needed to clarify the associations between the volume of each subfield and the various cognitive domains. So far a few studies have been conducted among Asian populations. A more specific understanding of these relationships is crucial given the functional and histological differences in the subfields and their distinct patterns of atrophy, which imply that the hippocampal subfields may affect cognition differentially. This study aimed to investigate the associations between the volumes of 12 hippocampal subfields on cognitive performance in a Singaporean sample. Method 448 patients at a memory clinic in Singapore (97 with no cognitive impairment, 177 with CIND, and 174 with dementia) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a neuropsychological assessment. MRI was processed through free surfer (v.6.1) to extract volumes of 12 hippocampal subfields—the tail, subiculum, presubiculum, parasubiculum, CA1, CA3, CA4, fimbria, fissure, molecular layer, the molecular and granule cell layers of the of the dentate gyrus (GCMLDG), and the hippocampus‐amygdala transition area (HATA). Cognition was assessed using NINDS–Canadian Stroke Network harmonization neuropsychological battery. Result Global cognition was associated with the subiculum, presubiculum, CA1, CA3, CA4, molecular layer, and GCMLDG (all p‐values < .0005). Except for the fissure, all hippocampal subfields were associated with visuospatial skills (all p‐values < .05) and memory (all p‐values < .035). The fimbria was associated with the most cognitive domains, including executive dysfunction (p = .011), language (p = .006), visuomotor function (p = .003), visuospatial skills (p < .001), and memory (p < .001). Conclusion The current study builds on existing research on the associations between hippocampal subfield volumes and cognitive dysfunction. Longitudinal studies are required to investigate the volumetric reduction of hippocampal subfields as a biomarker of cognitive decline.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".