MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406208688 · doi:10.1002/alz.091900

Brain Functional Flexibility and its Relationship to the Preclinical Stage of Alzheimer’s Disease

2024· article· en· W4406208688 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadali Javanray, Frédéric St‐Onge, Pierre Bellec, Bratislav Misic, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Sylvia Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceDiseaseFlexibility (engineering)Stage (stratigraphy)Functional connectivityPsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineBiologyInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Characterizing pathological and functional features of the preclinical stage of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is essential as Amyloid beta (Aβ) and tau, the pathological hallmarks of AD, start to accumulate years prior to the onset of clinical symptoms. Whether Aβ and/or tau are related to the brain’s ability to functionally reconfigure in time (functional flexibility) remains unclear despite its important role in behavior and cognition. Method We included 233 cognitively unimpaired individuals with family history of AD from the PREVENT‐AD cohort who underwent both Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). We computed the element‐wise product of the BOLD fMRI timeseries of the 400 Schaefer atlas nodes as co‐fluctuation matrices for the scan duration (all TRs). We then calculated the variabilities of the obtained co‐fluctuations at the whole brain and network level (DMN and limbic as early susceptible networks in AD) and used these measures of variability as a proxy of functional flexibility. We also computed the average of the obtained co‐fluctuation matrices, which mathematically corresponds to the Pearson correlation of the nodal timeseries pairs and used this as our marker of static functional connectivity (sFC). We then assessed the relationship between functional flexibility and sFC with the level of Aβ (global index) and tau (temporal meta‐ROIs), using those, both as continuous and dichotomized variables (Figure 1). Two thresholds were used for Aβ, one associated with low Aβ accumulation (centiloid of 18) and the other with significant Aβ burden (centiloid of 40). Result No association was found between AD pathology and functional flexibility or sFC using AD pathology as continuous or dichotomized variables (Figure 2 and 3). However, the maximum range of functional flexibility values in individuals with significant Aβ burden and high tau was about half the one found in individuals with low or no pathology, a result that was particularly striking with tau. Conclusion The absence of group difference suggests that functional flexibility cannot be used as a proxy of AD. While individuals with AD pathology have a low range of functional flexibility values, low values are also frequent in individuals with no pathology.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
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 topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207