Tau‐Atrophy Variability Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tau neurofibrillary tangles (T) are the primary driver of downstream neurodegeneration (N) and subsequent cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there is substantial variability in the T-N relationship - manifested in higher or lower atrophy than expected for level of tau in a given brain region. The goal of this study was to determine if region-based quantitation of this variability allows for identification of underlying modulatory factors, including polypathology. METHODS: F-Flortaucipir SUVR (T) were computed in 104 gray matter regions from a cohort of cognitively-impaired, amyloid-positive (A+) individuals. Region-specific residuals from a robust linear fit between SUVR and cortical thickness were computed as a surrogate for T-N mismatch. A summary T-N mismatch metric defined using residuals were correlated with demographic and imaging-based modulatory factors, and to partition the cohort into data-driven subgroups. RESULTS: The summary T-N mismatch metric correlated with underlying factors such as age and burden of white matter hyperintensity lesions. Data-driven subgroups based on clustering of residuals appear to represent different biologically relevant phenotypes, with groups showing distinct spatial patterns of higher or lower atrophy than expected. INTERPRETATION: These data support the notion that a measure of deviation from a normative relationship between tau burden and neurodegeneration across brain regions in individuals on the AD continuum captures variability due to multiple underlying factors, and can reveal phenotypes, which if validated, may help identify possible contributors to neurodegeneration in addition to tau, which may ultimately be useful for cohort selection in clinical trials. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:751-762.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".