Brain-cognition relationships in late-life depression: a systematic review of structural magnetic resonance imaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients with late-life depression (LLD) have cognitive impairment, and at least one-third meet diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a prodrome to Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases. However, the mechanisms linking LLD and MCI, and brain alterations underlying impaired cognition in LLD and LLD + MCI remain poorly understood. METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review of studies of brain-cognition relationships in LLD or LLD + MCI to identify circuits underlying impaired cognition in LLD or LLD + MCI. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 13, 2023. We included studies that assessed cognition in patients with LLD or LLD + MCI and acquired: (1) T1-weighted imaging (T1) measuring gray matter volumes or thickness; or (2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) assessing white matter integrity. Due to the heterogeneity in studies, we only conducted a descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: Our search identified 51 articles, resulting in 33 T1 studies, 17 DWI studies, and 1 study analyzing both T1 and DWI. Despite limitations, reviewed studies suggest that lower thickness or volume in the frontal and temporal regions and widespread lower white matter integrity are associated with impaired cognition in LLD. Lower white matter integrity in the posterior cingulate region (precuneus and corpus callosum sub-regions) was more associated with impairment executive function and processing speed than with memory. CONCLUSION: Future studies should analyze larger samples of participants with various degrees of cognitive impairment and go beyond univariate statistical models to assess reliable brain-cognition relationships in LLD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".