MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393252255 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.28.24305007

Enhancing Cognitive Performance Prediction through White Matter Hyperintensity Connectivity Assessment: A Multicenter Lesion Network Mapping Analysis of 3,485 Memory Clinic Patients

2024· preprint· en· W4393252255 on OpenAlexaff
Marvin Petersen, Mirthe Coenen, Charles DeCarli, Alberto De Luca, Ewoud van der Lelij, Frederik Barkhof, Thomas Benke, Christopher Chen, Peter Dal‐Bianco, Anna Dewenter, Marco Duering, Christian Enzinger, Michael Ewers, Lieza G. Exalto, Evan F. Fletcher, Nicolai Franzmeier, Saima Hilal, Edith Hofer, Huiberdina L. Koek, Andrea B. Maier, Pauline Maillard, Cheryl R. McCreary, Janne M. Papma, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Reinhold Schmidt, Eric E. Smith, Rebecca M. E. Steketee, Esther van den Berg, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Vikram Venkatraghavan, Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian, Meike W. Vernooij, Frank J. Wolters, Xin Xu, Andreas Horn, Kaustubh R. Patil, Simon B. Eickhoff, Götz Thomalla, J. Matthijs Biesbroek, Geert Jan Biessels, Bastian Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institutes of HealthZonMwDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsCognitionHyperintensityEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceWhite matterConnectomePsychologyCognitive testMedicineNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional connectivityRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: White matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin (WMH) are associated with cognitive impairment and are a key imaging marker in evaluating cognitive health. However, WMH volume alone does not fully account for the extent of cognitive deficits and the mechanisms linking WMH to these deficits remain unclear. We propose that lesion network mapping (LNM), enables to infer if brain networks are connected to lesions, and could be a promising technique for enhancing our understanding of the role of WMH in cognitive disorders. Our study employed this approach to test the following hypotheses: (1) LNM-informed markers surpass WMH volumes in predicting cognitive performance, and (2) WMH contributing to cognitive impairment map to specific brain networks. Methods & results: We analyzed cross-sectional data of 3,485 patients from 10 memory clinic cohorts within the Meta VCI Map Consortium, using harmonized test results in 4 cognitive domains and WMH segmentations. WMH segmentations were registered to a standard space and mapped onto existing normative structural and functional brain connectome data. We employed LNM to quantify WMH connectivity across 480 atlas-based gray and white matter regions of interest (ROI), resulting in ROI-level structural and functional LNM scores. The capacity of total and regional WMH volumes and LNM scores in predicting cognitive function was compared using ridge regression models in a nested cross-validation. LNM scores predicted performance in three cognitive domains (attention and executive function, information processing speed, and verbal memory) significantly better than WMH volumes. LNM scores did not improve prediction for language functions. ROI-level analysis revealed that higher LNM scores, representing greater disruptive effects of WMH on regional connectivity, in gray and white matter regions of the dorsal and ventral attention networks were associated with lower cognitive performance. Conclusion: Measures of WMH-related brain network connectivity significantly improve the prediction of current cognitive performance in memory clinic patients compared to WMH volume as a traditional imaging marker of cerebrovascular disease. This highlights the crucial role of network effects, particularly in attentionrelated brain regions, improving our understanding of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment. Moving forward, refining WMH information with connectivity data could contribute to patient-tailored therapeutic interventions and facilitate the identification of subgroups at risk of cognitive disorders.

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)0.004
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→