Association of β-Amyloid Accumulation With Executive Function in Adults With Unimpaired Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and ObjectivesThe neuropathologic changes underlying Alzheimer disease (AD) start before overt cognitive symptoms arise, but it is not well-known how they relate to the first subtle cognitive changes. The objective for this study was to examine the independent associations of the AD hallmarks β-amyloid (Aβ), tau, and neurodegeneration with different cognitive domains in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, CU participants from the prospective BioFINDER-2 study were included. All had CSF biomarkers (Aβ42 and phosphorylated tau [p-tau]181), MRI (cortical thickness of AD-susceptible regions), Aβ-PET (neocortical uptake), tau-PET (entorhinal uptake), and cognitive test data for memory, executive function, verbal function, and visuospatial function. Multivariable linear regression models were performed using either CSF Aβ42, p-tau181, and cortical thickness or Aβ-PET, tau-PET, and cortical thickness as predictors of cognitive function. The results were validated in an independent cohort (Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative [ADNI]). ResultsA total of 316 CU participants were included from the BioFINDER-2 study. Abnormal Aβ status was independently associated with the executive measure, regardless of modality (CSF Aβ42, β = 0.128, p = 0.024; Aβ-PET, β = 0.124, p = 0.049), while tau was independently associated with memory (CSF p-tau181, β = 0.132, p = 0.018; tau-PET, β = 0.189, p = 0.002). Cortical thickness was independently associated with the executive measure and verbal fluency in both models (p = 0.005–0.018). To examine the relationships in the earliest stage of preclinical AD, only participants with normal biomarkers of tau and neurodegeneration were included (n = 217 CSF-based; n = 246 PET-based). Again, Aβ status was associated with executive function (CSF Aβ42, β = 0.189, p = 0.005; Aβ-PET, β = 0.146, p = 0.023), but not with other cognitive domains. The results were overall replicated in the ADNI cohort (n = 361). DiscussionThese findings suggest that Aβ is independently associated with worse performance on an executive measure but not with memory performance, which instead is associated with tau pathology. This may have implications for early preclinical AD screening and outcome measures in AD trials targeting Aβ pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".