Women can bear a bigger burden: ante- and post-mortem evidence for reserve in the face of tau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we aimed to assess whether women are able to withstand more tau before exhibiting verbal memory impairment. Using data from 121 amyloid-β-positive Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants, we fit a linear model with Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test score as the response variable and tau-PET standard uptake value ratio as the predictor and took the residuals as an estimate of verbal memory reserve for each subject. Women demonstrated higher reserve (i.e. residuals), whether the Learning (t = 2.78, P = 0.006) or Delay (t = 2.14, P = 0.03) score from the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test was used as a measure of verbal memory ability. To validate these findings, we examined 662 National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center participants with a C2/C3 score (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease) at autopsy. We stratified our National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center sample into Braak 1/2, Braak 3/4 and Braak 5/6 subgroups. Within each subgroup, we compared Logical Memory scores between men and women. Men had worse verbal memory scores within the Braak 1/2 (Logical Memory Immediate: β = −5.960 ± 1.517, P < 0.001, Logical Memory Delay: β = −5.703 ± 1.677, P = 0.002) and Braak 3/4 (Logical Memory Immediate: β = −2.900 ± 0.938, P = 0.002, Logical Memory Delay: β = −2.672 ± 0.955, P = 0.006) subgroups. There were no sex differences in Logical Memory performance within the Braak 5/6 subgroup (Logical Memory Immediate: β = −0.314 ± 0.328, P = 0.34, Logical Memory Delay: β = −0.195 ± 0.287, P = 0.50). Taken together, our results point to a sex-related verbal memory reserve.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".