P-Glycoprotein Altered Expression in Alzheimer's Disease: Regional Anatomic Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the expression of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in brain samples of Alzheimer disease (AD) and normative brains (NM). Superior temporal cortex hippocampal and brainstem samples from 15 AD and NM brains were selected from comparable sites. P-gp positive capillaries and β-amyloid (Aβ) senile plaques (SP) were counted. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using nonparametric data analysis with Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman's tests. There were no significant differences in P-gp expression between superior temporal and hippocampus samples. However, there were significant differences in P-gp expression, when comparing brainstem with both hippocampal and superior temporal samples in both conditions (P < 0.012; P < 0.002 in NM cases and P < 0.001; <0.001 in AD cases); the brainstem has greater P-gp expression in each case and condition. In addition, there was a notable inverse negative correlation (P < 0.01) between P-gp expression and the presence of SPs in the AD condition superior temporal cortex. The results of this study suggest that there were significant site-dependent differences in the expression of P-gp. There may be an increased protective role for P-gp expression against amyloid deposition in the brainstem and in the superior temporal cortex of AD brains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".