Atrophy patterns in hippocampal subregions and their relationship with cognitive function in fibromyalgia patients with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Fibromyalgia (FM) has been associated with decreased hippocampal volume; however, the atrophy patterns of hippocampal subregions have not yet been identified. We therefore aimed to evaluate the volumes of hippocampal subregions in FM patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to explore the relationship between different subregional alterations and cognitive function. Methods: The study included 35 FM patients (21 with MCI and 14 without MCI) and 35 healthy subjects. All subjects performed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to assess cognitive function. FreeSurfer V.7.3.2 was used to calculate hippocampal subregion volumes. We then compared hippocampal subregion volumes between the groups, and analyzed the relationship between hippocampal subregion volume and cognitive function using a partial correlation analysis method. Results: Compared with the healthy subjects, FM patients with MCI had smaller hippocampal volumes in the left and right CA1 head, Molecular layer head, GC-DG head, and CA4 head, and in the left Presubiculum head. Poorer executive function, naming ability, and attention were associated with left CA1 head and left Molecular layer head atrophy. By contrast, hippocampal subregion volumes in the FM patients without MCI were slightly larger than or similar to those in the healthy subjects, and were not significantly correlated with cognitive function. Conclusion: Smaller volumes of left CA1 head and left Molecular layer head were associated with poorer executive function, naming ability, and attention in FM patients with MCI. However, these results were not observed in the FM patients without MCI. These findings suggest that the hippocampal subregions of FM patients might present compensatory mechanisms before cognitive decline occurs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".