MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414394996 · doi:10.1002/brb3.70919

Microstructural Hippocampal Alterations in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging

2025· review· en· W4414394996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amir Mahmoud Ahmadzadeh, Sadegh Ghaderi, Sana Mohammadi, Nahid Jashirenezhad, Farzad Fatehi

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationKurtosisDiffusionHippocampusDiffusion MRI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background The hippocampus is highly vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease (AD), with early microstructural changes potentially detectable via diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI). Previous studies report promising DKI findings in AD, necessitating systematic evaluation. To compare hippocampal DKI metrics, particularly mean kurtosis (MK), between AD patients and healthy controls (HCs) and explore factors influencing these differences. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched until November 2024. Two reviewers independently extracted hippocampal MK values. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analysis employed random‐effects models (STATA v17). Subgroup analyses (sex, age, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] parameters) and sensitivity and trim‐and‐fill assessments were conducted. Standardized mean difference (SMD), I 2 for heterogeneity, and Egger's/Begg's tests for publication bias (significance: p < 0.05). Results Ten studies (215 AD patients, 217 HCs; mean age: 65–75 years) using 3.0 T MRI were included. Eight articles were included in the meta‐analysis to compare MK between groups. AD patients exhibited significantly reduced bilateral hippocampal MK compared to HCs (left: SMD = −1.32, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [−1.97 to −0.66]; right: SMD = −1.22 [−1.88 to −0.56]; both p < 0.001), indicating compromised microstructural complexity. Subgroup analyses revealed more pronounced MK reductions in studies with higher male ratios (>42%; left: SMD = −1.87; right: SMD = −1.91; p < 0.05). Age, echo time, repetition time, and diffusion directions did not significantly influence effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, and publication bias was detected, but trim‐and‐fill analyses revealed no missing studies. Conclusion Reduced hippocampal MK in AD reflects microstructural degeneration, with sex‐related differences in effect magnitude.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207