MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389912612 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13243679

Whole Brain and Corpus Callosum Fractional Anisotropy Differences in Patients with Cognitive Impairment

2023· article· en· W4389912612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kalvis Kaļva, Nauris Zdanovskis, Kristı̄ne Šneidere, Andrejs Kostiks, Guntis Karelis, Ardis Platkājis, Ainārs Stepens

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional anisotropyCorpus callosumDiffusion MRICognitive impairmentPercentile rankNormativePsychologyPercentileMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPopulationMedicineAudiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicinePsychiatryRadiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is an MRI analysis method that could help assess cognitive impairment (CI) in the ageing population more accurately. In this research, we evaluated fractional anisotropy (FA) of whole brain (WB) and corpus callosum (CC) in patients with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and moderate/severe cognitive impairment (SCI). In total, 41 participants were included in a cross-sectional study and divided into groups based on Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores (NC group, nine participants, MCI group, sixteen participants, and SCI group, sixteen participants). All participants underwent an MRI examination that included a DTI sequence. FA values between the groups were assessed by analysing FA value and age normative percentile. We did not find statistically significant differences between the groups when analysing CC FA values. Both approaches showed statistically significant differences in WB FA values between the MCI-SCI and MCI-NC groups, where the MCI group participants showed the highest mean FA and highest mean FA normative percentile results in WB.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207