MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7046131001

Cortical Excitability and its Relationship with Clinical Symptoms in Alzheimer’s Dementia

2021· dissertation· W7046131001 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationDorsolateral prefrontal cortexDementiaCognitionElectroencephalographyPrefrontal cortexCerebral cortex
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroencephalography (EEG) studies of Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD) have shown evidence of cortical hyper-excitability, however, its relationship with cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) remains unclear. Objectives: First, we conducted a system review and meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesis the evidence of cortical excitability in AD and its relationship with clinical symptoms. Next, we compared dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) excitability between AD and older healthy individuals using transcranial magnetic stimulation paired with EEG and assessed its relationship with cognition and NPS in AD. Hypothesis: We hypothesized increased cortical excitability in AD would be inversely associated with cognition and positively associated with NPS. Results: There is increased motor cortex and DLPFC excitability in AD as compared to healthy individuals. Additionally, DLPFC excitability was inversely associated with global cognition and executive functioning, and positively associated with NPS burden in AD. Conclusions: These findings help in understanding the mechanisms underlying AD and its associated clinical symptoms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→