Predicting brain atrophy from tau pathology: A summary of clinical findings and their translation into personalized models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For more than 25 years, the amyloid hypothesis-the paradigm that amyloid is the primary cause of Alzheimer’s disease-has dominated the Alzheimer’s community. Now, increasing evidence suggests that tissue atrophy and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease are more closely linked to the amount and location of misfolded tau protein than to amyloid plaques. However, the precise correlation between tau pathology and tissue atrophy remains unknown. Here we integrate multiphysics modeling and Bayesian inference to create personalized tau-atrophy models using longitudinal clinical images from the the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. For each subject, we infer three personalized parameters, the tau misfolding rate, the tau transport coefficient, and the tau-induced atrophy rate from four consecutive annual tau positron emission tomography scans and structural magnetic resonance images. Strikingly, the tau-induced atrophy coefficient of 0.13/year (95% CI: 0.097-0.189) was fairly consistent across all subjects suggesting a strong correlation between tau pathology and tissue atrophy. Our personalized whole brain atrophy rates of 0.68-1.68%/year (95% CI: 0.5-2.0) are elevated compared to healthy subjects and agree well with the atrophy rates of 1-3%/year reported for Alzheimer’s patients in the literature. Once comprehensively calibrated with a larger set of longitudinal images, our model has the potential to serve as a diagnostic and predictive tool to estimate future atrophy progression from clinical tau images on a 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".