MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178256367 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.672077

Association of Tau Pathology With Clinical Symptoms in the Subfields of Hippocampal Formation

2021· article· en· W3178256367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xinting Ge, Dan Zhang, Yuchuan Qiao, Jiong Zhang, Junhai Xu, Yuanjie Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEisaiServierGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceGenentechIXICONorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsHippocampal formationSubiculumEntorhinal cortexTauopathyDentate gyrusHippocampusParahippocampal gyrusPsychologyApolipoprotein EAlzheimer's diseaseNeuroscienceTemporal lobeInternal medicineCognitionMedicineOncologyNeurodegenerationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : To delineate the relationship between clinical symptoms and tauopathy of the hippocampal subfields under different amyloid statuses. Methods : One hundred and forty-three subjects were obtained from the ADNI project, including 87 individuals with normal cognition, 46 with mild cognitive impairment, and 10 with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). All subjects underwent the tau PET, amyloid PET, T1W, and high-resolution T2W scans. Clinical symptoms were assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) total score and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale cognition 13 (ADAS-cog-13) total score, comprising memory and executive function scores. The hippocampal subfields including Cornu Ammonis (CA1–3), subiculum (Sub), and dentate gyrus (DG), as well as the adjacent para-hippocampus (PHC) and entorhinal cortex (ERC), were segmented automatically using the Automatic Segmentation of Hippocampal Subfields (ASHS) software. The relationship between tauopathy/volume of the hippocampal subfields and assessment scores was calculated using partial correlation analysis under different amyloid status, by controlling age, gender, education, apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) allele ɛ4 carrier status, and, time interval between the acquisition time of tau PET and amyloid PET scans. Results : Compared with amyloid negative (A−) group, individuals from amyloid positive (A+) group are more impaired based on the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE; p = 3.82e-05), memory ( p = 6.30e-04), executive function ( p = 0.0016), and ADAS-cog-13 scores ( p = 5.11e-04). Significant decrease of volume (CA1, DG, and Sub) and increase of tau deposition (CA1, Sub, ERC, and PHC) of the hippocampal subfields of both hemispheres were observed for the A+ group compared to the A- group. Tauopathy of ERC is significantly associated with memory score for the A- group, and the associated regions spread into Sub and PHC for the A+ group. The relationship between the impairment of behavior or executive function and tauopathy of the hippocampal subfield was discovered within the A+ group. Leftward asymmetry was observed with the association between assessment scores and tauopathy of the hippocampal subfield, which is more prominent for the NPI score for the A+ group. Conclusion : The associations of tauopathy/volume of the hippocampal subfields with clinical symptoms provide additional insight into the understanding of local changes of the human HF during the AD continuum and can be used as a reference for future 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207