Staging tau pathology with tau PET in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A biological research framework to define Alzheimer’ disease with dichotomized biomarker measurement was proposed by National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association (NIA–AA). However, it cannot characterize the hierarchy spreading pattern of tau pathology. To reflect in vivo tau progression using biomarker, we constructed a refined topographic 18F-AV-1451 tau PET staging scheme with longitudinal clinical validation. Seven hundred and thirty-four participants with baseline 18F-AV-1451 tau PET (baseline age 73.9 ± 7.7 years, 375 female) were stratified into five stages by a topographic PET staging scheme. Cognitive trajectories and clinical progression were compared across stages with or without further dichotomy of amyloid status, using linear mixed-effect models and Cox proportional hazard models. Significant cognitive decline was first observed in stage 1 when tau levels only increased in transentorhinal regions. Rates of cognitive decline and clinical progression accelerated from stage 2 to stage 3 and stage 4. Higher stages were also associated with greater CSF phosphorylated tau and total tau concentrations from stage 1. Abnormal tau accumulation did not appear with normal β-amyloid in neocortical regions but prompt cognitive decline by interacting with β-amyloid in temporal regions. Highly accumulated tau in temporal regions independently led to cognitive deterioration. Topographic PET staging scheme have potentials in early diagnosis, predicting disease progression, and studying disease mechanism. Characteristic tau spreading pattern in Alzheimer’s disease could be illustrated with biomarker measurement under NIA–AA framework. Clinical–neuroimaging–neuropathological studies in other cohorts are needed to validate these findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".