MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286685093 · doi:10.1093/brain/awac257

Sex-specific effects of microglial activation on Alzheimer’s disease proteinopathy in older adults

2022· article· en· W4286685093 on OpenAlexaff
Kaitlin B. Casaletto, Emma Nichols, Vahan Aslanyan, Stephanie M. Simone, Jennifer S. Rabin, Renaud La Joie, Adam M. Brickman, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, Priya Palta, Raj G. Kumar, Kristen M. George, Claudia L. Satizábal, Julie A. Schneider, Judy Pa

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersUniversity of California, DavisNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMicrogliaNeuropathologyDementiaAlzheimer's diseaseAmyloid (mycology)PathologyImmunohistochemistryPsychologyDiseaseMedicineInternal medicineNeuroscienceInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Females show a disproportionate burden of Alzheimer's disease pathology and higher Alzheimer's disease dementia prevalences compared to males, yet the mechanisms driving these vulnerabilities are unknown. There is sexual dimorphism in immunological functioning, and neuroimmune processes are implicated in Alzheimer's disease genesis. Using neuropathology indicators from human brain tissue, we examined the mediational role of microglial activation on the relationship between amyloid and tau and how it differs by sex. 187 decedents (64% female; 89 mean age at death; 62% non-demented) from the Rush Memory and Aging Project completed neuropathological evaluations with brain tissue quantified for microglial activation, amyloid-β and tau. Proportion of morphologically activated microglia was determined via immunohistochemistry (HLA-DP-DQ-DR) and morphological staging (stage I, II or III). Amyloid-β and tau burden were quantified via immunohistochemistry (M00872 or AT8, respectively). Using causal counterfactual modelling, we estimated the mediational effect of microglial activation on the amyloid-β to tau relationship in the whole sample and stratified by sex (amyloid-β → microglial activation → tau). Alternative models tested the role of microglia activation as the precipitating event (microglial activation → amyloid-β → tau). Microglial activation significantly mediated 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 10-67] of the relationship between amyloid-β and tau in the whole sample; stratified analyses suggested this effect was stronger and only statistically significant in females. 57% (95% CI 22-100) of the effect of amyloid-β on tau was mediated through microglial activation in females, compared to 19% (95% CI 0-64) in males. Regional analyses suggested that mediational effects were driven by greater cortical versus subcortical microglial activation. Relationships were independent of cerebrovascular disease indices. Alternative models suggested that in females, microglial activation was a significant exposure both preceding the amyloid-β to tau relationship (mediational effect: 50%, 95% CI 23-90) and directly related to tau burden (microglia direct effect: 50%, 95% CI 10-77). By contrast, in males, only the direct effect of microglial activation to tau reached significance (74%, 95% CI 32-100) (mediational effect: 26%, 95% CI 0-68). Our models suggest a reciprocal, bidirectional relationship between amyloid-β and microglial activation that significantly accounts for tau burden in females. By contrast, in males, direct independent (non-mediational) relationships between microglial activation or amyloid-β with tau were observed. Microglial activation may be disproportionately important for Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis in females. Determining sex-specific vulnerabilities to Alzheimer's disease development both inform fundamental pathophysiology and support precision health approaches for this heterogeneous disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations80
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207