Frontal tau pathology underlies behavioural / dysexecutive clinical presentations of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Increasing attention is being directed to atypical clinical presentations of Alzheimer’s disease. The behavioural/dysexecutive variant of Alzheimer’s disease is a rare clinical syndrome presenting with behavioural changes, apathy and executive dysfunction, similar to frontotemporal dementia. While initial autopsy studies identified pathology in the frontal cortex, recent studies challenge the notion of frontal involvement in this condition. Method We assessed 14 cases of behavioural/dysexecutive Alzheimer’s disease recruited from a tertiary care memory clinic, all of whom had biologically defined Alzheimer’s disease (amyloid and tau positive). They were compared with 24 disease severity‐ and age‐matched amnestic Alzheimer’s disease patients and a group of 131 cognitively unimpaired (CU) elderly individuals. All subjects were evaluated with [18F]AZD4694‐PET (amyloid‐b), [18F]MK6240‐PET (tau), MRI, genotyping for apolipoprotein E (APOE) and neuropsychological testing. Result Voxelwise contrasts against CU elderly identified patterns of frontal cortical tau aggregation in the behavioural/dysexecutive group, with peaks in the anterior cingulate, frontal insula and orbitofrontal cortices. Amnestic Alzheimer’s disease patients had larger differences in the lateral temporal, inferior parietal and posterior cingulate cortices. In contrast to tau‐PET, no differences were observed in the distribution of amyloid‐PET between both Alzheimer’s disease groups. Finally, voxelwise regressions demonstrated significant relationships between frontal cortical tau load and severity of executive dysfunction (FWE corrected at p<0.001), while memory dysfunction was related to temporal and parietal tau load (FWE corrected at p<0.001). Conclusion The association between frontal tau pathology and behavioural / dysexecutive clinical presentations provides in vivo support for a “frontal variant” of Alzheimer’s disease as initially identified by autopsy studies. Our results also highlight the need for consensus clinical criteria for behavioural/dysexecutive Alzheimer’s disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".