MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388036777 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21567

The causal link between cardiometabolic risk factors and gray matter atrophy: An exploratory study

2023· article· en· W4388036777 on OpenAlexafffund
Vibujithan Vigneshwaran, Matthias Wilms, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research ChairsCalgary Foundation
KeywordsAtrophyBody mass indexBiobankObservational studyCausal inferenceMedicineInternal medicinePsychologyPathologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although gray matter atrophy is commonly observed with aging, it is highly variable, even among healthy people of the same age. This raises the question of what other factors may contribute to gray matter atrophy. Previous studies have reported that risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases are associated with accelerated brain aging. However, these studies were primarily based on standard correlation analyses, which do not unveil a causal relationship. While randomized controlled trials are typically required to investigate true causality, in this work, we investigated an alternative method by exploring data-driven causal discovery and inference techniques on observational data. Accordingly, this feasibility study used clinical and quantified gray matter volume data from 22,793 subjects from the UK biobank cohort without any known neurological disease. Our method identified that age, sex, body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage (BFP), and smoking exhibit a causal relationship with gray matter volume. Interventions on the causal network revealed that higher BMI and BFP values significantly increased the chance of gray matter atrophy in males, whereas this was not the case in females.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207