Network Diffusion Modeling Explains Longitudinal Tau PET Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is associated with the cerebral accumulation of neurofibrillary tangles of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. The progressive occurrence of tau aggregates in different brain regions is closely related to neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. However, our current understanding of tau propagation relies almost exclusively on postmortem histopathology, and the precise propagation dynamics of misfolded tau in the living brain remain poorly understood. Here we combine longitudinal positron emission tomography and dynamic network modeling to test the hypothesis that misfolded tau propagates preferably along neuronal connections. We follow 46 subjects for three or four annual positron emission tomography scans and compare their pathological tau profiles against brain network models of intracellular and extracellular spreading. For each subject, we identify a personalized set of model parameters that characterizes the individual progression of pathological tau. Across all subjects, the mean protein production rate was 0.21 ± 0.15 and the intracellular diffusion coefficient was 0.34 ± 0.43. Our network diffusion model can serve as a tool to detect non-clinical symptoms at an earlier stage and make informed predictions about the timeline of neurodegeneration on an individual personalized basis.
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 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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".