Relationship between cerebrospinal fluid neurodegeneration biomarkers and temporal brain atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of neurodegeneration predict brain atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults, whether these associations can be explained by phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau) and the 42 amino acid form of amyloid-β (Aβ42) biomarkers, and which neural substrates may drive these associations. We addressed these questions in 2 samples of cognitively healthy older adults who underwent longitudinal structural MRI up to 7 years and had baseline CSF levels of heart-type fatty-acid binding protein (FABP3)=, total-tau, neurogranin, and neurofilament light (NFL) (n = 189, scans = 721). The results showed that NFL, total-tau, and FABP3 predicted entorhinal thinning and hippocampal atrophy. Brain atrophy was not moderated by Aβ42 and the associations between NFL and FABP3 with brain atrophy were independent of p-tau. The spatial pattern of cortical atrophy associated with the biomarkers overlapped with neurogenetic profiles associated with expression in the axonal (total-tau, NFL) and dendritic (neurogranin) components. CSF biomarkers of neurodegeneration are useful for predicting specific features of brain atrophy in older adults, independently of amyloid and tau pathology biomarkers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".