Predictors of cognitive impairment in primary age-related tauopathy: an autopsy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary age-related tauopathy (PART) is a form of Alzheimer-type neurofibrillary degeneration occurring in the absence of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. While PART shares some features with Alzheimer disease (AD), such as progressive accumulation of neurofibrillary tangle pathology in the medial temporal lobe and other brain regions, it does not progress extensively to neocortical regions. Given this restricted pathoanatomical pattern and variable symptomatology, there is a need to reexamine and improve upon how PART is neuropathologically assessed and staged. We performed a retrospective autopsy study in a collection (n = 174) of post-mortem PART brains and used logistic regression to determine the extent to which a set of clinical and neuropathological features predict cognitive impairment. We compared Braak staging, which focuses on hierarchical neuroanatomical progression of AD tau and Aβ pathology, with quantitative assessments of neurofibrillary burden using computer-derived positive pixel counts on digitized whole slide images of sections stained immunohistochemically with antibodies targeting abnormal hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) in the entorhinal region and hippocampus. We also assessed other factors affecting cognition, including aging-related tau astrogliopathy (ARTAG) and atrophy. We found no association between Braak stage and cognitive impairment when controlling for age (p = 0.76). In contrast, p-tau burden was significantly correlated with cognitive impairment even when adjusting for age (p = 0.03). The strongest correlate of cognitive impairment was cerebrovascular disease, a well-known risk factor (p < 0.0001), but other features including ARTAG (p = 0.03) and hippocampal atrophy (p = 0.04) were also associated. In contrast, sex, APOE, psychiatric illness, education, argyrophilic grains, and incidental Lewy bodies were not. These findings support the hypothesis that comorbid pathologies contribute to cognitive impairment in subjects with PART. Quantitative approaches beyond Braak staging are critical for advancing our understanding of the extent to which age-related tauopathy changes impact cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".