MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287378024 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac193

Causal links among amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration

2022· article· en· W4287378024 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Murat Bilgel, Dean F. Wong, Abhay Moghekar, Luigi Ferrucci, Susan M. Resnick

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationEisai IncorporatedDoD Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeBioClinicaBiogenPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationRocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyGE HealthcareMerckNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeurodegenerationEntorhinal cortexNeuroscienceAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeTauopathyTemporal lobePsychologyNeuroimagingTemporal cortexDementiaAmyloid (mycology)NeocortexAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineHippocampusDiseaseInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Amyloid-β pathology is associated with greater tau pathology and facilitates tau propagation from the medial temporal lobe to the neocortex, where tau is closely associated with local neurodegeneration. The degree of the involvement of amyloid-β versus existing tau pathology in tau propagation and neurodegeneration has not been fully elucidated in human studies. Careful quantification of these effects can inform the development and timing of therapeutic interventions. We conducted causal mediation analyses to investigate the relative contributions of amyloid-β and existing tau to tau propagation and neurodegeneration in two longitudinal studies of individuals without dementia: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (N = 103, age range 57–96) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (N = 122, age range 56–92). As proxies of neurodegeneration, we investigated cerebral blood flow, glucose metabolism, and regional volume. We first confirmed that amyloid-β moderates the association between tau in the entorhinal cortex and in the inferior temporal gyrus, a neocortical region exhibiting early tau pathology (amyloid group × entorhinal tau interaction term β = 0.488, standard error [SE] = 0.126, P < 0.001 in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging; β = 0.619, SE = 0.145, P < 0.001 in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative). In causal mediation analyses accounting for this facilitating effect of amyloid, amyloid positivity had a statistically significant direct effect on inferior temporal tau as well as an indirect effect via entorhinal tau (average direct effect =0.47, P < 0.001 and average causal mediation effect =0.44, P = 0.0028 in Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging; average direct effect =0.43, P = 0.004 and average causal mediation effect =0.267, P = 0.0088 in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative). Entorhinal tau mediated up to 48% of the total effect of amyloid on inferior temporal tau. Higher inferior temporal tau was associated with lower colocalized cerebral blood flow, glucose metabolism, and regional volume, whereas amyloid had only an indirect effect on these measures via tau, implying tau as the primary driver of neurodegeneration (amyloid–cerebral blood flow average causal mediation effect =−0.28, P = 0.021 in Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging; amyloid–volume average causal mediation effect =−0.24, P < 0.001 in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative). Our findings suggest targeting amyloid or medial temporal lobe tau might slow down neocortical spread of tau and subsequent neurodegeneration, but a combination therapy may yield better outcomes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207