Meta-Analysis of the Alzheimer’s Disease Human Brain Transcriptome and Functional Dissection in Mouse Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a consensus atlas of the human brain transcriptome in Alzheimer's disease (AD), based on meta-analysis of differential gene expression in 2,114 postmortem samples. We discover 30 brain coexpression modules from seven regions as the major source of AD transcriptional perturbations. We next examine overlap with 251 brain differentially expressed gene sets from mouse models of AD and other neurodegenerative disorders. Human-mouse overlaps highlight responses to amyloid versus tau pathology and reveal age- and sex-dependent expression signatures for disease progression. Human coexpression modules enriched for neuronal and/or microglial genes broadly overlap with mouse models of AD, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and aging. Other human coexpression modules, including those implicated in proteostasis, are not activated in AD models but rather following other, unexpected genetic manipulations. Our results comprise a cross-species resource, highlighting transcriptional networks altered by human brain pathophysiology and identifying correspondences with mouse models for AD preclinical studies.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it