MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390200947 · doi:10.1002/alz.082764

Identification of Hippocampal and Amygdala Subfields Predictive of MoCA Scores in Patients with Dementia with Lewy Bodies

2023· article· en· W4390200947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tejaswi Sudhakar, Swati Rane Levendovszky, Cyrus P. Zabetian, Debby W. Tsuang, Jagan A. Pillai, Stephen M. Rao, Odinachi Oguh, Carol F. Lippa, Oscar L. López, Sarah Berman, David J. Irwin, Douglas Galasko, Irene Litvan, Karen Marder, Lawrence S. Honig, Jori Fleisher, James E. Galvin, Andrea Bozoki, Angela Taylor, Marwan N. Sabbagh, Dylan Wint, Brenna Cholerton, James B. Leverenz, Valerie G. Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesHippocampal formationDementiaNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineAmygdalaAudiologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hippocampal and amygdala subfields variably affect cognitive impairment in neurodegenerative diseases. Subfields of these regions can be well segmented using modern neuroimaging tools but their role in neurodegenerative disease is under active investigation. In this study, we identified hippocampal and amygdala subregions predictive of cognitive performance and motor symptoms severity measured by MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and MDS‐UPDRS III, respectively, in patients with dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB). Method We selected all participants with probable DLB (N = 48, mean age = 71±7 years, 15% female) enrolled in the Dementia with Lewy Bodies Consortium (DLBC) as of July 2022, with concurrent measures of 3D T1 MRI sequence, MoCA, and MDS‐UPDRS III scores. We performed cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation of hippocampal subfields and nuclei of the amygdala using FreeSurfer (v 7.2). We used combat harmonization to account for site and scanner differences. We trained and applied a bootstrapped, bidirectional stepwise regression model of 29 predictor variables comprised of sub‐fields and mean cortical thickness against MoCA and MDS‐UPDRS III, respectively, with an 80‐20 train‐test split ratio, and 5000 repetitions, corrected for age and sex. Result Subfield segmentation is shown in Figure 1A. The best fitting model for MoCA included mean cortical thickness, parasubiculum, hippocampal and amygdala transition area, corticoamygdaloid transition area, and CA3 body (Figure 1B, adjusted R2 = 0.51). The best fitting model for MDS‐UPDRS III included the cortical nucleus of the amygdala and CA1 body (Figure 1C, adjusted R2 = 0.22). This model was considered a poor fit. We considered MoCA for further analysis and closely predicted scores in our 20% partitioned test sample (Figure 2A, R2 = 0.38). Conclusion We report model‐based selection of hippocampal and amygdala subfields to predict MoCA scores in DLB. Atrophy in these regions has been associated with global cognitive deficit in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease cohorts. The model fit for MDS‐UPDRS III scores was poor, providing evidence that these brain regions do not serve a role in motor control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→