Seeing beyond the symptoms: biomarkers and brain regions linked to cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Early Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis remains challenging, necessitating specific biomarkers for timely detection. This study aimed to identify such biomarkers and explore their associations with cognitive decline. Methods: A cohort of 1759 individuals across cognitive aging stages, including healthy controls (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD, was examined. Utilizing nine biomarkers from structural MRI (sMRI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and positron emission tomography (PET), predictions were made for Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDRSB), and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS). Biomarkers included four sMRI (e.g., average thickness [ATH]), four DTI (e.g., mean diffusivity [MD]), and one PET Amyloid-β (Aβ) measure. Ensemble regression tree (ERT) technique with bagging and random forest approaches were applied in four groups (HC/MCI, HC/AD, MCI/AD, and HC/MCI/AD). Results: Aβ emerged as a robust predictor of cognitive scores, particularly in late-stage AD. Volumetric measures, notably ATH, consistently correlated with cognitive scores across early and late disease stages. Additionally, ADAS demonstrated links to various neuroimaging biomarkers in all subject groups, highlighting its efficacy in monitoring brain changes throughout disease progression. ERT identified key brain regions associated with cognitive scores, such as the right transverse temporal region for Aβ, left and right entorhinal cortex, left inferior temporal gyrus, and left middle temporal gyrus for ATH, and the left uncinate fasciculus for MD. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in understanding AD mechanisms, offering potential contributions to early biomarker development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".