MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390201829 · doi:10.1002/alz.082484

DTI changes of thalamic subregions in genetic frontotemporal dementia: findings from the GENFI cohort

2023· article· en· W4390201829 on OpenAlexaff
Sonja Soskic, Henry F. J. Tregidgo, Emily Todd, Arabella Bouzigues, David M. Cash, Lucy L. Russell, David L. Thomas, Ian B. Malone, John C. van Swieten, Lize C. Jiskoot, Harro Seelaar, Barbara Borroni, Daniela Galimberti, Raquel Sánchez‐Valle, Robert Laforce, Fermín Moreno, Matthis Synofzik, Caroline Graff, Mario Masellis, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, James B. Rowe, Rik Vandenberghe, Elizabeth Finger, Fabrizio Tagliavini, Alexandre de Mendonça, Isabel Santana, Christopher Butler, Simon Ducharme, Alexander Gerhard, Johannes Levin, Markus Otto, Sandro Sorbi, Isabelle Le Ber, Florence Pasquier, Daniel C. Alexander, Juan Eugenio Iglesias, Jonathan D. Rohrer, Martina Bocchetta

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsC9orf72Fractional anisotropyFrontotemporal dementiaDiffusion MRIThalamusNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicineMedicineDementiaMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrophy of thalamic subregions has been observed across the spectrum of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). To gain better insight into underlying tissue changes, we investigated how thalamic subregional fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) derived from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) are altered in genetic FTD. Method We used our newly developed thalamus segmentation tool, which jointly combines structural and diffusion input MRI data, to segment thalami and extract thalamic subregional FA and MD values for 163 genetic mutation carriers and 126 non‐carriers with suitable 3T MRI data from the GENetic FTD Initiative (GENFI). Mutation carriers were divided according to their genetic diagnosis and CDR®+NACC FTLD global scores into presymptomatic/prodromal (≤0.5: 41 C9orf72, 59 GRN, 34 MAPT) and symptomatic (≥1: 8 C9orf72, 11 GRN, 10 MAPT) groups. Mean FA and MD values for thalamic subregions were obtained using diffusion tensors interpolated in the log domain and weighted by segmentation posterior probabilities. Thalamic subregional FA and MD values for presymptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers within each genetic group were compared with non‐carriers using analysis of covariance with bootstrapping, where age, scanner type, and sex were covariates. We corrected for multiple comparisons and calculated percentage changes in adjusted FA and MD mean values for mutation carriers relative to non‐carriers. Result The only significant change at the presymptomatic stage was found for C9orf72 expansion carriers, who showed FA reduction in the intralaminar subregion (5%) (Figure 1, Table 1). In symptomatic C9orf72 expansion carriers, FA was reduced in the laterodorsal (21%), lateral posterior (13%), anteroventral (13%) and intralaminar (11%) subregions. Symptomatic MAPT mutation carriers also showed FA reduction in the laterodorsal (15%) and anteroventral (11%) subregions. No significant FA reductions were found for GRN mutation carriers and no significant MD changes were observed for any group after correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusion We detected FA reductions of thalamic subregions only for C9orf72 expansion carriers at the presymptomatic stage, and for C9orf72 and MAPT mutation carriers at the symptomatic stage. Combined with the lack of robust MD changes, our findings may warrant further assessment of thalamic microstructure with more advanced diffusion models.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→