Assessment and Comparison of Nonlinear Measures in Resting-State Magnetoencephalograms in Alzheimer’s Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonlinear dynamical measures, such as fractal dimension (FD), entropy, and Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZC), have been extensively investigated individually for detecting information content in magnetoencephalograms (MEGs) from patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To compare systematically the performance of twenty conventional and recently introduced nonlinear dynamical measures in studying AD versus mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and healthy control (HC) subjects using MEG. METHODS: We compared twenty nonlinear measures to distinguish MEG recordings from 36 AD (mean age = 74.06±6.95 years), 18 MCI (mean age = 74.89±5.57 years), and 26 HC subjects (mean age = 71.77±6.38 years) in different brain regions and also evaluated the effect of the length of MEG epochs on their performance. We also studied the correlation between these measures and cognitive performance based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). RESULTS: The results obtained by LZC, zero-crossing rate (ZCR), FD, and dispersion entropy (DispEn) measures showed significant differences among the three groups. There was no significant difference between HC and MCI. The highest Hedge's g effect sizes for HC versus AD and MCI versus AD were respectively obtained by Higuchi's FD (HFD) and fuzzy DispEn (FuzDispEn) in the whole brain and was most prominent in left lateral. The results obtained by HFD and FuzDispEn had a significant correlation with the MMSE scores. DispEn-based techniques, LZC, and ZCR, compared with HFD, were less sensitive to epoch length in distinguishing HC form AD. CONCLUSIONS: FuzDispEn was the most consistent technique to distinguish MEG dynamical patterns in AD compared with HC and MCI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".