Patterns of cerebral amyloid angiopathy define histopathological phenotypes in <scp>A</scp>lzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Pathological heterogeneity of Aβ deposition in senile plaques (SP) and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been long noted. The aim of this study was to classify cases of AD according to their pattern of Aβ deposition, and to seek factors which might predict, or predispose towards, this heterogeneity. METHODS: The form, distribution and severity of Aβ deposition (as SP and/or CAA) was assessed semiquantitatively in immunostained sections of frontal, temporal and occipital cortex from 134 pathologically confirmed cases of AD. RESULTS: Four patterns of Aβ deposition were defined. Type 1 describes cases predominantly with SP, with or without CAA within leptomeningeal vessels alone. Type 2 describes cases where, along with many SP, CAA is present in both leptomeningeal and deeper penetrating arteries. Type 3 describes cases where capillary CAA is present along with SP and arterial CAA. Type 4 describes a predominantly vascular phenotype, where Aβ deposition is much more prevalent in and around blood vessels, than as SP. As would be anticipated from the group definitions, there were significant differences in the distribution and degree of CAA across the phenotype groups, although Aβ deposition as SP did not vary. There were no significant differences between phenotype groups with regard to age of onset, age at death, disease duration and brain weight, or disease presentation. Women were over-represented in the type 1 phenotype and men in type 2. Genetically, type 3 (capillary subtype) cases were strongly associated with possession of the APOE ε4 allele. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers an alternative method of pathologically classifying cases of AD. Further studies may derive additional genetic, environmental or clinical factors which associate with, or may be responsible for, these varying pathological presentations of AD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".