MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406201610 · doi:10.1002/alz.086415

Predicting cognitive function from multimodal mesoscale neuroimaging data

2024· article· en· W4406201610 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Duchesne, Olivier Potvin, Louis Dieumegarde

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingCognitionPsychologyCalifornia Verbal Learning TestMagnetic resonance imagingCognitive testMedicineInternal medicineVerbal learningNeuroscienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Our objective was to assess individual and joint relationships between various mesoscale indicators of brain health (e.g., neuronal, metabolic, and vascular integrity) and cognitive function. Method We used 7224 timepoint measures originating from 1825 participants of the ADNI study who were cognitively healthy or with mild cognitive impairment at initial assessment. Cognitive function outcomes were test results on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS‐Cog), the Rey auditory Verbal Learning Test immediate recall (RAVLTi), the Rey auditory Verbal Learning Test delayed recall (RAVLTd), the Trail Making Test A (Trail a), and the Trail Making Test B (Trail b) tasks. Four families of markers were used. First were three families of mesoscale neuroimaging assessed by MRI for 88 brain regions: 1. Neuronal integrity was estimated by FreeSurfer 6.0 produced volumes extracted from T1‐weighted (T1w) images; 2. Neurite integrity was estimated through T1w/T2‐weighted MRI ratios; 3. Cerebral metabolism integrity was measured by synthetic fluorodeoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography, generated by a model based on a latent‐space regularized generative adversarial net from T1w MRIs. Secondly, 4. Systemic markers of vascular health‐related factors were included in the model (history of cardiovascular diseases, alcohol abuse, smoking history, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, Hachinski score). Cross‐sectional and future cognitive outcomes were all predicted in a single machine learning model using all combinations of predictor families at baseline, time interval between outcomes and baseline as long as sex and education. Three types of regression models were tested (Ridge, Partial Least Squares and Support Vector). Result Individually, neuronal and metabolism integrity were the best predictors of cognitive function (Figure 1; R2: .15‐.35 and MAE in Z score: .08‐.23). The combination of two or more mesoscale brain health markers improved predictions, with the best combination being neuronal integrity with metabolism (Figures 2‐3; mean R2: .28; mean MAE: .12). However, increasing the number of markers led to similar results. Conclusion While the prediction of cognition improved with a combination of brain health mesoscale markers, a plateau seems to be reached after combining two families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207