Trade-offs among brain structural network characteristics across the cognitive decline process in cerebral small vessel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the potential trade-offs among brain structural network characteristics across different stages of cognitive impairment in cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) based on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Methods: A total of 264 CSVD patients, including 95 patients with non-cognitive impairment (NCI), 142 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 27 with vascular dementia (VaD), and 30 healthy controls (HC) underwent cognitive test and brain diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The brain structural network was constructed using connections between 90 cortical and subcortical regions. Network characteristics, including sparsity, redundancy, global efficiency (Eg), and local efficiency (Eloc), were calculated. Results: Sparsity and redundancy significantly declined in the NCI group compared to the HC group. Eg was significantly reduced in the MCI group compared to the NCI group. All network characteristics declined in the VaD group compared to the MCI group. In the NCI group, both sparsity and redundancy were significantly positively correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). In the MCI group, there was significant positive correlation between Eg and MoCA. In the VaD group, there was significant negative correlation between Eloc and MoCA. When controlling for sparsity, Eloc exhibited a significant negative correlation with Eg in all three CSVD groups, while redundancy displayed a significant negative correlation with Eg specifically in MCI group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence for the heterogeneous alterations in brain structural network across different stages of cognitive impairment in CSVD. The disconnection of brain structural network at NCI stage is mainly the loss of redundant connections. The decline of Eg is the vital factor for cognitive impairment at MCI stage. The decline of all network characteristics is the prominent manifestation at VaD stage. Throughout the cognitive decline process in CSVD, there are trade-offs among the brain network wiring cost, integration, and segregation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".