The Role of Cognitive Reserve in Protecting Cerebellar Volumes of Older Adults with mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to investigate the relationship between cerebellar volumes and cognitive reserve in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). A description of proxies of cerebellar cognitive reserve in terms of different volumes across lobules is also provided. 36 individuals with MCI underwent neuropsychological (MoCA, MMSE, Clock test, CRIq) assessment and neuroimaging acquisition with magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Simple linear correlations were applied between cerebellar volumes and cognitive measures. Multiple linear regression models were then used to estimate standardized regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals. Simple linear correlations between cerebellar lobules volumes and cognitive features highlighted a significant association between CRIq_Working activity and specific motor cerebellar volumes: Left_V (ρ = 0.40, p = 0.02), Right_V (r = 0.42, p = 0.002), Vermis_VIIIb (ρ = 0.47, p = 0.003), Left_X (ρ = -0.46, p = 0.002) and Vermis_X (r = 0.35, p = 0.03). Furthermore, CRIq_Working activity scores correlated with certain cerebellar lobules implicated in cognition: Left_Crus_II, Vermis VIIb, Left_IX. MMSE was associated only with the Right_VIIB volume (r = 0.35, p = 0.02), while Clock Drawing Test scores correlated with both Left_Crus_I and Right_Crus_I (r = -0.42 and r = 0.42, p = 0.02, respectively). This study suggests that a higher cognitive reserve is associated with specific cerebellar lobule volumes and that Working activity may play a predominant role in this association. These findings contribute to the understanding of the relationship between cerebellar volumes and cognitive reserve, highlighting the potential modulatory role of Working activity on cerebellum response to cognitive decline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".