Amyloid-β CSF/PET discordance vs tau load 5 years later: It takes two to tangle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between discordant amyloid-β PET and CSF biomarkers at baseline and the emergence of tau pathology 5 years later. METHODS We included 730 ADNI participants without dementia (282 cognitively normal, 448 mild cognitive impairment) with baseline [ 18 F]Florbetapir PET and CSF Aβ42 available. Amyloid-β CSF/PET status was determined at baseline using established cut-offs. Longitudinal data was available for [ 18 F]florbetapir (Aβ) PET (baseline to 4.3±1.9 years), CSF (p)tau (baseline to 2.0±0.1 years), cognition (baseline to 4.3±2.0 years), and [ 18 F]flortaucipir (tau) PET (measured 5.2±1.2 years after baseline to 1.6±0.7 years later). We used linear mixed modelling to study the association between amyloid-β CSF/PET status and tau pathology measured in CSF or using PET. Additionally, we calculated the proportion of CSF+/PET-participants who during follow-up (i) progressed to amyloid-β CSF+/PET+, and/or (ii) became tau-positive based on [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET. RESULTS Amyloid-β CSF+/PET+ (N=318) participants had elevated CSF (p)tau levels and worse cognitive performance at baseline, while CSF+/PET-(N=80) participants were overall similar to the CSF-/PET-(N=306) group. Five years after baseline, [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET uptake in the CSF+/PET-group (1.20±0.13) did not differ from CSF-/PET-(1.18±0.08, p=0.69), but was substantially lower than CSF+/PET+ (1.48±0.44, p<0.001). Of the CSF+/PET-subjects, 21/64 (33%) progressed to amyloid-β CSF+/PET+, whereas only one (3%, difference p<0.05) became tau-positive based on [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET. CONCLUSIONS Sufficient amyloid-β load detectable by both CSF and PET is required before substantial tau deposition emerges. Compared to participants with abnormal amyloid-β levels on PET and CSF, the CSF+/PET-group has a distinctly better prognosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".