Spontaneous brain activity in the hippocampal regions could characterize cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether spontaneous brain activity can be used as a prospective indicator to identify cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (RS-fMRI) was performed on PD patients. The cognitive level of patients was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale. The fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) was applied to measure the strength of spontaneous brain activity. Correlation analysis and between-group comparisons of fMRI data were conducted using Rest 1.8. By overlaying cognitively characterized brain regions and defining regions of interest (ROIs) based on their spatial distribution for subsequent cognitive stratification studies. RESULTS: A total of 58 PD patients were enrolled in this study. They were divided into three groups: normal cognition (NC) group (27 patients, average MoCA was 27.96), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group (21 patients, average MoCA was 23.52), and severe cognitive impairment (SCI) group (10 patients, average MoCA was 17.3). It is noteworthy to mention that those within the SCI group exhibited the most advanced chronological age, with an average of 74.4 years, whereas the MCI group displayed a higher prevalence of male participants at 85.7%. It was found hippocampal regions were a stable representative brain region of cognition according to the correlation analysis between the fALFF of the whole brain and cognition, and the comparison of fALFF between different cognitive groups. The parahippocampal gyrus was the only region with statistically significant differences in fALFF among the three cognitive groups, and it was also the only brain region to identify MCI from NC, with an AUC of 0.673. The paracentral lobule, postcentral gyrus was the region that identified SCI from NC, with an AUC of 0.941. The midbrain, hippocampus, and parahippocampa gyrus was the region that identified SCI from MCI, with an AUC of 0.926. CONCLUSION: The parahippocampal gyrus was the potential brain region for recognizing cognitive impairment in PD, specifically for identifying MCI. Thus, the fALFF of parahippocampal gyrus is expected to contribute to future study as a multimodal fingerprint for early warning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".