P157 Neurocognitive insights: functional magnetic resonance imaging of spatial working memory and sustained attention in people with systemic lupus erythematous
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Aims Cognitive impairment (CI) is common in people with systemic lupus erythematosus (pwSLE). Treatment options are limited and the effects upon the brain is unclear. Differences in brain structure seen in SLE do not always associate with CI, however significant associations have been found with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Using fMRI, this study aims to further explore potential compensatory brain mechanisms used in SLE that help with cognitive function. Methods Participants were recruited into one of two groups;pwSLE (meeting EULAR/ACR criteria) or healthy controls(HC). Demographic, clinical and psychiatric data and patient reported outcome measures were collected.Cognitive function was assessed using the ACR Neuropsychological Battery. Brain scans included two structural and two fMRI scans done during stage 1 and 2 of a cognitive task. Stage 1 of the task had an encoding, retention and working memory (WM) component. Stage 2 of the task examined long-term memory. Differences between task performances were examined using t-tests. The fMRI data was modelled using SPM12 to look for differences in blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) brain responses between the study groups during the different stages/components of the task. Results To-date 37 pwSLE and 10 HCs have been recruited. The median ages were 36 (HC) and 40 (pwSLE) years. From the pwSLE group the average disease duration was 15 years, the average SLEDAI-2K score was 5 and percentages of those on antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants and biologics were 66%, 32%, and 54%, respectively. There were no differences on task performance between the two groups. Greater BOLD responses were seen in the HC compared to the pwSLE group during stage 1 encoding and WM phases as well as during stage 2 (long-term memory). pwSLE had less attenuated BOLD signals during the stage 1 retention phase compared to HCs (Table 1). Conclusion We found altered brain responses to our cognitive task between pwSLE and HCs. Predominantly the HC group had greater BOLD responses in cognitive regions during the task compared to the pwSLE group. However, we did not find any difference between the two groups in regards to cognitive performance. This study is still ongoing and additional results are expected. Disclosure M. Barraclough: None. M. McCowen: None. S. McKie: None. A. Kafkas: None. B. Parker: None. J. Diaz-Martinez: None. A. Knight: None. K. Bingham: None. M. Li: None. J. Su: None. M. Kakvan: None. C. Munoz Grajales: None. M. Tartaglia: None. L. Ruttan: None. J. Wither: None. D. Bonilla: None. N. Anderson: None. D. Montaldi: None. R. Elliott: None. P. Katz: None. D. Beaton: None. R. Green: None. I. Bruce: None. Z. Touma: None.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".