Investigation of Brain Iron in Niemann-Pick Type C: A 7T Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While brain iron dysregulation has been observed in several neurodegenerative disorders, its association with the progressive neurodegeneration in Niemann-Pick type C is unknown. Systemic iron abnormalities have been reported in patients with Niemann-Pick type C and in animal models of Niemann-Pick type C. In this study, we examined brain iron using quantitative susceptibility mapping MR imaging in individuals with Niemann-Pick type C compared with healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 10 patients with adolescent- and adult-onset Niemann-Pick type C and 14 age- and sex-matched healthy controls underwent 7T brain MR imaging with T1 and quantitative susceptibility mapping acquisitions. A probing whole-brain voxelwise comparison of quantitative susceptibility mapping between groups was conducted. Mean quantitative susceptibility mapping in the ROIs (thalamus, hippocampus, putamen, caudate nucleus, and globus pallidus) was further compared. The correlations between regional volume, quantitative susceptibility mapping values, and clinical features, which included disease severity on the Iturriaga scale, cognitive function, and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, were explored as secondary analyses. RESULTS: We observed lower volume in the thalamus and voxel clusters of higher quantitative susceptibility mapping in the pulvinar nuclei bilaterally in patients with Niemann-Pick type C compared with the control group. In patients with Niemann-Pick type C, higher quantitative susceptibility mapping in the pulvinar nucleus clusters correlated with lower volume of the thalamus on both sides. Moreover, higher quantitative susceptibility mapping in the right pulvinar cluster was associated with greater disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest iron deposition in the pulvinar nucleus in Niemann-Pick type C disease, which is associated with thalamic atrophy and disease severity. This preliminary evidence supports the link between iron and neurodegeneration in Niemann-Pick type C, in line with existing literature on other neurodegenerative disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".