MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403636879 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae365

The spine-brain axis: is spinal anatomy associated with brain volume?

2024· article· en· W4403636879 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Grosu, Trayana Nikolova, Roberto Lorbeer, Veit M. Stoecklein, Susanne Rospleszcz, Nicola Fink, Christopher L. Schlett, Corinna Storz, Ebba Beller, Daniel Keeser, Margit Heier, Lena S. Kiefer, Elke Maurer, Sven S. Walter, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Jens Ricke, Fabian Bamberg, Annette Peters, Sophia Stoecklein

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersMünchner Zentrum für GesundheitswissenschaftenHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSPINE (molecular biology)AnatomyBrain sizeMedicineBiologyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract First small sample studies indicate that disturbances of spinal morphology may impair craniospinal flow of cerebrospinal fluid and result in neurodegeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of cervical spinal canal width and scoliosis with grey matter, white matter, ventricular and white matter hyperintensity volumes of the brain in a large study sample. Four hundred participants underwent whole-body 3 T magnetic resonance imaging. Grey matter, white matter and ventricular volumes were quantified using a warp-based automated brain volumetric approach. Spinal canal diameters were measured manually at the cervical vertebrae 2/3 level. Scoliosis was evaluated using manual measurements of the Cobb angle. Linear binomial regression analyses of measures of brain volumes and spine anatomy were performed while adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, cholesterol levels, body mass index, smoking and alcohol consumption. Three hundred eighty-three participants were included [57% male; age: 56.3 (±9.2) years]. After adjustment, smaller spinal canal width at the cervical vertebrae 2/3 level was associated with lower grey matter (P = 0.034), lower white matter (P = 0.012) and higher ventricular (P = 0.006, inverse association) volume. Participants with scoliosis had lower grey matter (P = 0.005), lower white matter (P = 0.011) and larger brain ventricular (P = 0.003) volumes than participants without scoliosis. However, these associations were attenuated after adjustment. Spinal canal width at the cervical vertebrae 2/3 level and scoliosis were not associated with white matter hyperintensity volume before and after adjustment (P > 0.864). In our study, cohort smaller spinal canal width at the cervical vertebrae 2/3 level and scoliosis were associated with lower grey and white matter volumes and larger ventricle size. These characteristics of the spine might constitute independent risk factors for neurodegeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207