MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating the Predictive Power of Cognitive Assessment Tools for Cortical Hypometabolism in Alzheimer’s Disease

2025· article· en· W7160407969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Sadeghi, Salime Jafari, Hadi Aligholi, Zahra Shayan, Alireza Keshavarz Bahaqiqat, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionDiscriminative modelMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive Assessment SystemDementiaNeuroimagingDiseasePositron emission tomographyAlzheimer's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by memory loss and cognitive decline. One of the leading theories explaining AD pathology is the emergence of cortical hypometabolism. This study aimed to investigate the association between cortical hypometabolism and various cognitive assessment tools across the dementia spectrum.Methods: This cross-sectional and longitudinal study utilized data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), including 1,048 participants: 291 cognitively normal (CN), 579 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 178 with AD. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) data (as an indicator of hypometabolism) and cognitive assessment scores—including the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS11 and ADAS13 subtests), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog), and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE)—were analyzed. Statistical methods included ANOVA, multiple regression, and ROC/AUC analyses.Results: Linear regression revealed that ADAS11, ADAS13, and MMSE significantly predicted PET scores in the MCI group (p=0.002, p=0.002, p=0.017, respectively), while MoCA predicted PET scores in the CN group (β=0.016, p=0.045). ROC analysis showed that ADAS13 had the greatest discriminative capacity (AUC=0.786), followed by ADAS11 (AUC=0.767). Over time, PET scores declined significantly across all groups, with the AD group showing the largest decline. At 24 months, PET scores in the CN and MCI groups were notably higher than those in the AD group (p<0.001).Conclusion: ADAS11 and ADAS13 can effectively differentiate between normal and abnormal cortical hypometabolism. Among all cognitive measures, ADAS13 demonstrated the highest discriminative ability, making it a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers in the early detection and longitudinal monitoring of Alzheimer’s disease.

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)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→