Amygdalar and ERC Rostral Atrophy and Tau Pathology Reconstruction in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has emphasized the unique impact of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) pathology on the medial temporal lobe (MTL), a reflection that tau pathology is particularly striking in the entorhinal and transentorhinal cortex (ERC, TEC) early in the course of disease. However, other brain regions are affected by AD pathology during its early phases. Here, we use longitudinal diffeomorphometry to measure the atrophy rate from MRI of the amygdala compared with that in the ERC and TEC in controls, individuals who progressed from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and individuals with MCI who progressed to AD dementia, using a dataset from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Our results show significantly higher atrophy rates of the amygdala in both preclinical and MCI ‘converters’ compared to controls, with rates of volume loss comparable to rates of thickness loss in the ERC and TEC. Using our recently developed method, referred to as Projective LDDMM, we map measures of neurofibrillary tau tangles (NFTs) from digital pathology to MRI atlases and reconstruct, for the first time, dense 3D spatial distributions of NFT density within regions of the MTL. The distribution of NFTs is consistent with the MR atrophy rates, revealing high densities not only in ERC, but in the amygdala and rostral third of the MTL. The similarity of the location of NFTs and shape changes in a well-defined clinical population suggests that amygdalar atrophy rate, as measured through MRI may be a viable biomarker for AD. PACS 0000, 1111 2000 MSC 0000, 1111 Highlights Amygdala atrophy rate estimated from MRIs in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 3D distributions of neurofibrillary tau tangles (NFTs) reconstructed from 2D histology NFTs highest in the rostral medial temporal lobe, including amygdala and ERC Amygdala atrophy rate is comparable to ERC atrophy rate in preclinical AD Amygdala and ERC atrophy rates as potential biomarkers rooted in NFT 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".