Machine learning classifiers and associations of cognitive performance with hippocampal subfields in amnestic mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neuroimaging studies have demonstrated alterations in hippocampal volume and hippocampal subfields among individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). However, research on using hippocampal subfield volume modeling to differentiate aMCI from normal controls (NCs) is limited, and the relationship between hippocampal volume and overall cognitive scores remains unclear. Methods: We enrolled 50 subjects with aMCI and 44 NCs for this study. Initially, a univariate general linear model was employed to analyze differences in the volumes of hippocampal subfields. Subsequently, two sets of dimensionality reduction methods and four machine learning techniques were applied to distinguish aMCI from NCs based on hippocampal subfield volumes. Finally, we assessed the correlation between the relative volumes of hippocampal subfields and cognitive test variables (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA)). Results: Significant volume differences were observed in several hippocampal subfields, notably in the left hippocampus. Specifically, the volumes of the hippocampal tail, subiculum, CA1, presubiculum, molecular layer, GC-ML-DG, CA3, CA4, and fimbria differed significantly between the two groups. The highest area under the curve (AUC) values for left and right hippocampal machine learning classifiers were 0.678 and 0.701, respectively. Moreover, the volumes of the left subiculum, left molecular layer, right subiculum, right CA1, right molecular layer, right GC-ML-DG, and right CA4 exhibited the strongest and most consistent correlations with MoCA scores. Conclusion: Hippocampal subfield volume may serve as a predictive marker for aMCI. These findings underscore the sensitivity of hippocampal subfield volume to overall cognitive performance.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".