MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241795180 · doi:10.3410/f.740018688.793585521

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Four distinct trajectories of tau deposition identified in Alzheimer's disease.

2021· dataset· en· W4241795180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan M. Schott

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationCognitive impairmentDiseasePsychologyMedicineGerontologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the spread of tau pathology throughout the cerebral cortex. This spreading pattern was thought to be fairly consistent across individuals, although recent work has demonstrated substantial variability in the population with AD. Using tau-positron emission tomography scans from 1,612 individuals, we identified 4 distinct spatiotemporal trajectories of tau pathology, ranging in prevalence from 18 to 33%. We replicated previously described limbic-predominant and medial temporal lobe-sparing patterns, while also discovering posterior and lateral temporal patterns resembling atypical clinical variants of AD. These 'subtypes' were stable during longitudinal follow-up and were replicated in a separate sample using a different radiotracer. The subtypes presented with distinct demographic and cognitive profiles and differing longitudinal outcomes. Additionally, network diffusion models implied that pathology originates and spreads through distinct corticolimbic networks in the different subtypes. Together, our results suggest that variation in tau pathology is common and systematic, perhaps warranting a re-examination of the notion of 'typical AD' and a revisiting of tau pathological staging. PMID: 33927414 Funding information This work was supported by: CIHR, Canada NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: U01 AG024904 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG045611 Department of Health, United Kingdom Medical Research Council, United Kingdom Grant ID: MR/S03546X/1 Medical Research Council, United Kingdom Grant ID: MR/T027800/1 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: P01 AG019724 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: K99 AG065501 NIMH NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: T32 MH019112 More Less keyboard_arrow_down

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7160.548

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→