Atrophy subtypes in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease are associated with cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is a heterogeneous disorder. Understanding the biological basis for this heterogeneity is key for developing personalized medicine. We identified atrophy subtypes in Alzheimer's disease dementia and tested whether these subtypes are already present in prodromal Alzheimer's disease and could explain interindividual differences in cognitive decline. First we retrospectively identified atrophy subtypes from structural MRI with a data-driven cluster analysis in three datasets of patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia: discovery data (dataset 1: n = 299, age = 67 ± 8, 50% female), and two independent external validation datasets (dataset 2: n = 181, age = 66 ± 7, 52% female; dataset 3: n = 227, age = 74 ± 8, 44% female). Subtypes were compared on clinical, cognitive and biological characteristics. Next, we classified prodromal Alzheimer's disease participants (n = 603, age = 72 ± 8, 43% female) according to the best matching subtype to their atrophy pattern, and we tested whether subtypes showed cognitive decline in specific domains. In all Alzheimer's disease dementia datasets we consistently identified four atrophy subtypes: (i) medial-temporal predominant atrophy with worst memory and language function, older age, lowest CSF tau levels and highest amount of vascular lesions; (ii) parieto-occipital atrophy with poor executive/attention and visuospatial functioning and high CSF tau; (iii) mild atrophy with best cognitive performance, young age, but highest CSF tau levels; and (iv) diffuse cortical atrophy with intermediate clinical, cognitive and biological features. Prodromal Alzheimer's disease participants classified into one of these subtypes showed similar subtype characteristics at baseline as Alzheimer's disease dementia subtypes. Compared across subtypes in prodromal Alzheimer's disease, the medial-temporal subtype showed fastest decline in memory and language over time; the parieto-occipital subtype declined fastest on executive/attention domain; the diffuse subtype in visuospatial functioning; and the mild subtype showed intermediate decline in all domains. Robust atrophy subtypes exist in Alzheimer's disease with distinct clinical and biological disease expression. Here we observe that these subtypes can already be detected in prodromal Alzheimer's disease, and that these may inform on expected trajectories of cognitive decline.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".