Cerebral Microbleeds, CSF p-Tau, and Cognitive Decline: Significance of Anatomic Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral microbleeds are associated with aging, hypertension, and Alzheimer disease. Microbleeds in a lobar distribution are believed to reflect underlying amyloid angiopathy, whereas microbleeds in the deep gray matter and infratentorial brain are commonly seen with hypertension. However, it is unknown how microbleeds in either distribution are related to Alzheimer pathogenesis. The purpose of this analysis was to test whether lobar and deep gray/infratentorial microbleeds demonstrate differential associations with CSF amyloid-β and phosphorylated tau 181 protein levels and longitudinal cognitive decline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 626 subjects (151 cognitively normal, 389 with mild cognitive impairment, and 86 with Alzheimer disease) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who had undergone 3T MR imaging and lumbar puncture were included in the analysis. The number and location of microbleeds were assessed visually. Associations between lobar or deep gray/infratentorial microbleeds with CSF amyloid-β levels, abnormal CSF phosphorylated tau 181 protein levels, and longitudinal cognitive decline were assessed by using ordinary least-squares, logistic, and mixed-effects regression models while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Having ≥3 lobar microbleeds was associated with lower levels of CSF amyloid-β (P = .001). After adjusting for CSF amyloid-β level, lobar microbleeds were independently associated with a higher likelihood of having an abnormal CSF phosphorylated tau 181 protein level (P = .004). Lobar microbleeds were associated with accelerated longitudinal cognitive decline (P = .007). Deep gray/infratentorial microbleeds revealed no significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of microbleeds revealed different associations with amyloid-β and phosphorylated tau 181 protein levels and cognition. Lobar and deep gray/infratentorial microbleeds should be considered separately with regard to Alzheimer disease pathogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".