MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111163404 · doi:10.1002/alz.045612

Spatiotemporal imaging phenotypes of tau pathology in Alzheimer’s disease

2020· article· en· W3111163404 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob W. Vogel, Alexandra L. Young, Neil P. Oxtoby, Ruben Smith, Rik Ossenkoppele, Leon Aksman, Olof Strandberg, Renaud La Joie, Michel J. Grothe, Yasser Iturria‐Medina, Gil D. Rabinovici, Daniel C. Alexander, Alan C. Evans, Oskar Hansson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationInferenceNeuroimagingCluster analysisTau pathologyTauopathyPhenotypeAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseNeurodegenerationNeuroscienceBiologyPathologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The Braak staging scheme describes a stereotypical spread of tau pathology in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, apparent subtypes described at autopsy and clinical variants of AD both suggest variability in the pattern of tau spreading across the population. To address this discrepancy, we applied a validated spatiotemporal clustering algorithm to a large, multisite dataset of tau‐PET images. We verified these findings both longitudinally and on a separate tau‐PET dataset using a different radiotracer, and we characterized the phenotype and potential biological determinants of each subtype. Method Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn, Young et al., 2018 ) is a data‐driven, probabilistic algorithm that combines disease progression modeling with clustering to extract distinct spatiotemporal patterns (subtypes) from large cross‐sectional datasets. We applied SuStaIn to a multisite dataset (n=1143) of [18F]‐flortaucipir tau‐PET baseline scans to identify spatiotemporal subtypes of tau spreading. We investigated differences in demographic, cognitive and genetic measures. In a subsample of individuals with multiple tau‐PET scans over time (n=536), we tested longitudinal subtype stability and change in disease stage over time. We verified these subtypes in a second single‐site dataset (n=509) of [18F]‐RO948 tau‐PET scans. Finally we used the Epidemic Spreading Model (ESM, Iturria‐Medina et al., 2014) and imaging or transcriptomic analysis to determine if anatomical brain networks or specific cell‐types, respectively, could explain the differing spatial patterns across subtypes. Result In those subjects with significant tau‐PET signal in the brain, SuStaIn identified four spatiotemporal subtypes of tau‐PET spreading: Typical (worse memory, more APOE4 carriers), limbic‐sparing (younger, less APOE4 carriers), posterior (worse visuospatial cognition), and lateral‐temporal (worse language and executive function scores; Fig 1A, Fig 2). These same four subtypes were observed in a separate cohort using a different radiotracer (similarity 0.7–0.9; Fig 1B). 86% of subjects exhibited the same subtype at multiple visits (Fig 1C), and of that group, 83% advanced in disease stage or remained stable within model uncertainty. The ESM suggested different epicenters for each subtype, and each subtype pattern exhibited a different profile of cell‐type enrichment (Fig 3). Conclusion Four stable tau‐spreading phenotypes were observed with distinct cognitive profiles, which may be characterized by vulnerability of different corticolimbic networks involving distinct cell classes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→