MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327921944 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103383

The association between white matter hyperintensities and amyloid and tau deposition

2023· article· en· W4327921944 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sierra Alban, Kirsten M. Lynch, John M. Ringman, Arthur W. Toga, Helena C. Chui, Farshid Sepehrband, Jeiran Choupan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationStevens Center for Innovation, University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of Southern CaliforniaPfizerBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNational Institute of Mental HealthNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationAbbVieNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsHyperintensityInternal medicineCardiologyMedicineNeuroimagingWhite matterAmyloid (mycology)Magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyPathologyPsychiatryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) frequently occur in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and have a contribution from ischemia, though their relationship with β-amyloid and cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) is not completely understood. We used AT classification to categorize individuals based on their β-amyloid and tau pathologies, then assessed the effects of β-amyloid and tau on WMH volume and number. We then determined regions in which β-amyloid and WMH accumulation were related. Last, we analyzed the effects of various CVRFs on WMHs. As secondary analyses, we observed effects of age and sex differences, atrophy, cognitive scores, and APOE genotype. PET, MRI, FLAIR, demographic, and cardiovascular health data was collected from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI-3) (N = 287, 48 % male). Participants were categorized as A + and T + if their Florbetapir SUVR and Flortaucipir SUVR were above 0.79 and 1.25, respectively. WMHs were mapped on MRI using a deep convolutional neural network (Sepehrband et al., 2020). CVRF scores were based on history of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, BMI, and a cumulative score with 6 being the maximum score. Regression models and Pearson correlations were used to test associations and correlations between variables, respectively, with age, sex, years of education, and scanner manufacturer as covariates of no interest. WMH volume percent was significantly associated with global β-amyloid (r = 0.28, p < 0.001), but not tau (r = 0.05, p = 0.25). WMH volume percent was higher in individuals with either A + or T + pathology compared to controls, particularly within in the A+/T + group (p = 0.007, Cohen's d = 0.4, t = -2.5). Individual CVRFs nor cumulative CVRF scores were associated with increased WMH volume. Finally, the regions where β-amyloid and WMH count were most positively associated were the middle temporal region in the right hemisphere (r = 0.18, p = 0.002) and the fusiform region in the left hemisphere (r = 0.017, p = 0.005). β-amyloid and WMH have a clear association, though the mechanism facilitating this association is still not fully understood. The associations found between β-amyloid and WMH burden emphasizes the relationship between β-amyloid and vascular lesion formation while factors like CVRFs, age, and sex affect AD development through various mechanisms. These findings highlight potential causes and mechanisms of AD as targets for future preventions and treatments. Going forward, a larger emphasis may be placed on β-amyloid's vascular effects and the implications of impaired brain clearance in AD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207