Initial levels of β-amyloid and tau deposition have distinct effects on longitudinal tau accumulation in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To better assist with the design of future clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and aid in our understanding of the disease’s symptomatology, it is essential to clarify what roles β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles play in longitudinal tau accumulation inside and outside the medial temporal lobe (MTL) as well as how age, sex, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 (APOE-ε4), and Klotho-VS heterozygosity (KL-VS het ) modulate these relationships. Methods We divided the 325 Aβ PET-positive (A+) participants into two groups, A+/T− ( N = 143) and A+/T+ ( N = 182), based on the threshold (1.25) of the temporal meta-ROI 18F-flortaucipir (FTP) standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). We then compared the baseline and slopes of A+/T− and A+/T+ individuals’ Aβ plaques and temporal meta-ROI tau tangles with those of A−/T− cognitively unimpaired individuals ( N = 162) without neurodegeneration. In addition, we looked into how baseline Aβ and tau may predict longitudinal tau increases and how age, sex, APOE-ε4, and KL-VS het affect these associations. Results In entorhinal, amygdala, and parahippocampal (early tau-deposited regions of temporal meta-ROI), we found that baseline Aβ and tau deposition were positively linked to more rapid tau increases in A+/T− participants. However, in A+/T+ individuals, the longitudinal tau accumulation in fusiform, inferior temporal, and middle temporal cortices (late tau-deposited regions of temporal meta-ROI) was primarily predicted by the level of tau tangles. Furthermore, compared to older participants (age ≥ 65), younger individuals (age < 65) exhibited faster Aβ-dependent but slower tau-related tau accumulations. Additionally, compared to the KL-VS het− group, KL-VS het+ individuals showed a significantly lower rate of tau accumulation associated with baseline entorhinal tau in fusiform and inferior temporal regions. Conclusion These findings offer novel perspectives to the design of AD clinical trials and aid in understanding the tau accumulation inside and outside MTL in AD. In particular, decreasing Aβ plaques might be adequate for A+/T− persons but may not be sufficient for A+/T+ individuals in preventing tau propagation and subsequent downstream pathological changes associated with tau.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".