Combining ADC values in DWI with rCBF values in arterial spin labeling (ASL) for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the role of combined apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) values in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. The present prospective research enrolled 156 MCI patients and 58 healthy elderly people who came to our hospital from January 2021 to February 2023. T1W, T2W, diffusion-weighted imaging, and arterial spin labeling sequences were performed on all subjects, and ADC values and rCBF values were measured at the workstation. Clinical and demographic data of all patients were collected while mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) scores were used to assess patients' cognitive abilities. The MCI group had significantly lower rCBF values in the left frontal lobe, left occipital lobe, right frontal lobe, and right occipital lobe than the HC group. The ADC values in the left frontal lobe as well as the right frontal lobe were remarkably elevated in the MCI group than in the HC group. MoCA and MMSE scores were positively correlated with rCBF values in the left frontal, right frontal, left occipital, and right occipital lobes and negatively correlated with ADC values in the left and right frontal lobes. Combined ADC values and rCBF values from the left frontal lobe for the diagnosis of MCI had a higher sensitivity and specificity with the AUC was 0.877, sensitivity 81.0%, specificity 82.7%. Additionally, pressure fasting plasma glucose, ADC of the left frontal lobe, right frontal lobe, rCBF of left frontal lobe and rCBF of left frontal lobe were the risk factors of patients with MCI. In summary, our results indicated that the ADC values and rCBF values were changed in MCI group compared to HC group and correlated with MMSE and MoCA scores.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".