Enlarged perivascular spaces correlate with blood-brain barrier leakage and cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe clinical significance of enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS) in Alzheimer' s disease (AD) was ambiguous.ObjectiveTo investigate whether EPVS contribute to blood-brain barrier (BBB) leakage and cognition in AD.MethodsThe study included a total of 64 participants (26 healthy controls and 38 patients with AD). The evaluation of EPVS and BBB permeability was performed in specific anatomical locations: the centrum semiovale (CSO), basal ganglia, and hippocampus. The EPVS ratings were performed according to Potter's instructions. BBB permeability was evaluated using dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI. The relationship between EPVS and global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment), cognitive subdomains, and BBB permeability were examined in both groups. Finally, the relationship between CSO BBB permeability and cognition in AD patients was investigated.ResultsHigh-grade CSO EPVS was found associated with AD (OR: 3.40, 95% CI: 1.11-11.90, p = 0.04). In the AD group, a significant correlation was observed between high-grade CSO EPVS and lower MMSE score (r = -0.36, p = 0.03) and verbal fluency (r = -0.44, p = 0.01). High-grade CSO EPVS positively correlated with BBB leakage (r = 0.58, p < 0.001). The BBB permeability of CSO negatively correlated with verbal fluency (r = -0.52, p < 0.001) and attention (r = -0.40, p = 0.01).ConclusionsHigh-grade CSO EPVS is related to BBB leakage, which contributes to cognitive impairment in AD patients, especially verbal frequency. CSO EPVS can function as a convenient AD marker for intervention and therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".