ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Multimodal network alterations in diagnosis-age-defined early- and late-onset Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) may differ in large-scale network organization. We compared multimodal MRI markers of diagnosis-age-defined Alzheimer's phenotypes. Methods: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants were classified by age at first recorded mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: <65 years for EOAD and ≥65 years for LOAD. Retrospective symptom-onset information was consistent with this grouping when available. We assessed resting-state functional measures, graph-theoretical nodal metrics, structural-functional coupling (SFC), structural decoupling, and DTI-derived measures. Primary models adjusted for age and sex; sensitivity analyses examined nonlinear age, covariate overlap, clinical severity, disease stage, atrophy, biomarkers, head motion, regional coverage, and control-group composition. Results: The functional cohort included 50 EOAD, 72 LOAD, and 113 healthy controls. Global mean SFC showed only a modest group effect. LOAD showed higher regional SFC than EOAD in four frontal regions after false discovery rate correction. Graph-theoretical effects were predominantly nominal: only the overall three-group effect in Vermis 9 nodal efficiency survived within-family correction, and no EOAD-versus-LOAD nodal contrast survived. DTI-derived regional measures and structural decoupling were less subtype-discriminative. All four frontal effects remained significant after mean Power framewise displacement adjustment and overlap weighting, with bootstrap confidence intervals excluding zero. However, corrected support narrowed to one region in the nonlinear-age model and disappeared in disease- stage-, APOE ε 4-, amyloid PET-, and centiloid-adjusted models; restriction to amyloid-negative controls also retained one region. Conclusion: In the primary model, diagnosis-age-defined LOAD showed higher frontal regional SFC than EOAD. The absence of corrected EOAD-versus-LOAD graph findings, variable sensitivity-analysis support, and lack of corrected SFC-clinical associations indicate a model-sensitive network phenotype rather than a definitive onset-age biomarker or clinically validated subtype marker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.