Fractional Anisotropy Alterations in Key White Matter Pathways Associated with Cognitive Performance Assessed by MoCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated fractional anisotropy (FA) differences within key white matter tracts across patient groups stratified by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, aiming to evaluate FA’s potential as a biomarker for cognitive impairment. Methods: Seventy participants (aged 57–96 years) were categorized into high (HP, MoCA ≥ 26), moderate (MP, MoCA 18–25), and low (LP, MoCA < 18) cognitive performance groups. Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) was used to obtain FA values in corticospinal tracts, superior longitudinal fasciculus, inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, and cingulum. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and post-hoc tests. Results: Significant differences in FA values and normative percentiles were observed across cognitive groups in several tracts. Notably, the MP group exhibited significantly higher FA values in the Left Superior Longitudinal Fasciculus—Arcuate (mean FA 0.329 vs. LP 0.306, p = 0.033) and Right Superior Longitudinal Fasciculus—Arcuate (mean FA 0.329 vs. LP 0.306, p = 0.009), Left Inferior Fronto-Occipital Fasciculus (mean FA 0.308 vs. LP 0.283, p = 0.021), and Right Inferior Fronto-Occipital Fasciculus (mean FA 0.289 vs. LP 0.266, p = 0.017) compared to the LP group. Conclusions: Our findings reveal significant FA alterations across MoCA-defined cognitive groups, with moderate impairment showing higher FA than low performance. This suggests FA may reflect complex microstructural changes in early cognitive decline. While our modest sample size, particularly in the low-performance group, limits definitive conclusions, these results highlight the need for larger, multimodal studies to validate FA’s role as a sensitive, albeit complex, biomarker for cognitive impairment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".