MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312087620 · doi:10.1002/alz.064277

Tau phosphorylation is more closely associated with amyloid‐β plaques than with tau neurofibrillary tangles

2022· article· en· W4312087620 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Vermeiren, Joseph Therriault, Stijn Servaes, Firoza Z Lussier, Cécile Tissot, Tharick A. Pascoal, Mira Chamoun, Gleb Bezgin, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Nicholas J. Ashton, Thomas K. Karikari, Juan Lantero‐Rodriguez, Jenna Stevenson, Nesrine Rahmouni, Peter Kunach, Yi‐Ting Wang, Jaime Fernández Arias, Gassan Massarweh, Paolo Vitali, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Paramita Saha‐Chaudhuri, Kaj Blennow, Henrik Zetterberg, Serge Gauthier, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathologyAmyloid (mycology)NeuroimagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCognitive impairmentTau proteinPhosphorylationAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineDiseaseOncologyPsychologyInternal medicineNeuroscienceChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While fluid phosphorylated tau (pTau) epitopes are interpreted to be biomarkers of tau pathology according to the A/T/(N) framework, it is unclear to what extent they are preferentially associated with the defining histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): amyloid‐β plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles. Method We studied 171 individuals, including young adults (n=27), cognitively unimpaired elderly (n=85), individuals with mild cognitive impairment (n=36) and individuals with Alzheimer’s clinical syndrome (n=23), who were evaluated with [18F]AZD4694 amyloid‐PET, [18F]MK6240 tau‐PET, four tau phosphorylation sites in CSF (pTau181, pTau217, pTau231, pTau235) and two phosphorylation sites in plasma (pTau181, pTau231). To better understand the role of soluble biomarkers in AD diagnostic and research purposes, we evaluated associations between soluble pTau sites and cerebral amyloid‐PET and tau‐PET concentrations. Voxel‐wise linear regressions between fluid and imaging biomarkers were performed. Results for plasma and CSF pTau181 were replicated in an independent sample of 258 individuals included in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort (ADNI). Result We observed that for all plasma and CSF epitopes, pTau is more closely associated with amyloid‐PET than with tau‐PET. Squared correlation coefficients (Spearman’s R2) between CSF pTau epitopes and neocortical [18F]AZD4694 SUVR range from 0.48 to 0.63, while those for the temporal meta‐ROI [18F]MK6240 SUVR vary between 0.33 and 0.45 (p<0.001 for all phosphorylation sites). Using the R package “Cocor”, for CSF pTau181, pTau217 and pTau231 the difference in correlation coefficients between both measures of imaging biomarkers appear significant (p<0.01). Voxel‐wise linear regression analyses further support these results, in particular showing sizable associations for CSF pTau231 with amyloid‐PET. In addition, soluble pTau is more closely correlated with medial temporal than with neocortical tau. All soluble pTau concentrations rise significantly with increasing amyloid‐β plaque load. In contrast, soluble pTau plateau as tau‐PET concentrations increase, starting at Braak stage III. These findings were replicated using plasma and CSF pTau181 in the ADNI cohort. Conclusion Phosphorylated tau epitopes measured in CSF and plasma better reflect cerebral amyloidosis than neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. The current findings support careful interpretation of fluid pTau concentrations when implementing the A/T/(N) framework.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→