MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117232879 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_100129

HearCog Trial‐ Findings from FDG‐PET

2025· article· en· W7117232879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heidi Espedal, Dona M P Jayakody, Adriano Polpo, Ford Andrew, Leon Flicker, Osvaldo P. Almeida, Roslyn J. Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionSoftwareNeurologyIntervention (counseling)Neuroimaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The HearCog trial was designed to evaluate the impact of hearing aid intervention on patients with age‐related hearing loss and cognitive impairment. An imaging substudy, utilising 18 F‐FDG PET/CT as a functional imaging modality, was embedded to evaluate patterns of metabolic activity following early hearing aid intervention (group A) or delayed hearing aid intervention (group B). Method 28 study participants (mean age=77.4 years) underwent brain 18 F‐FDG PET/CT imaging at baseline and 12 months, with n = 14 from each group. All imaging was undertaken using the same PET/CT camera (Biograph 64 mCT, Siemens Healthineers) accredited for quantitative assessment by the Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network. The 18 F‐FDG dose was 185 MBq with a 10‐minute acquisition starting after 45 minutes uptake. For analysis of regional variation of 18 F‐FDG brain metabolism, we employed the Molecular Imaging Neurology Database Comparison software application (Syngo.via MI Neurology DB Comparison, Siemens Healthineers) where 18 F‐FDG brain scans from age‐matched (range 49‐79 years, n = 33) healthy volunteers were available for comparison. The analyses included semi‐automated anatomical co‐registration of subject images to the reference database, followed by an automated anatomical labelling of brain regions using the integrated atlas from Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI, McGill University). We compared the differences between the groups and the normal database for both timepoints, and performed parametric and non‐parametric statistical testing on differences between the study groups. Result There were no significant differences between the groups in age, gender, injected 18 F‐FDG activity, uptake time or days between imaging timepoints ( p ≥0.06). Database analysis identified 5 regions associated with increased 18 F‐FDG uptake between baseline and 12 months in the early (group A) compared to late (group B) intervention cohort. These regions include the central region (left and right), left central region, right rolandic operculum, left paracentral lobule and the left precentral gyrus. Conclusion Analysis using standardised regions from Neurology Database comparison software demonstrates relative improvements in the motor/sensorimotor areas of the brain in the early compared to late intervention group. Further analysis will be undertaken integrating MRI and PET data for improved anatomical delineation in particular for evaluation of cognitive and auditory regions of the brain.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→