The heterogeneity of asymmetric tau distribution is associated with an early age at onset and poor prognosis in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Left-right asymmetry, an important feature of brain development, has been implicated in neurodegenerative diseases, although it's less discussed in typical Alzheimer's disease (AD). We sought to investigate whether asymmetric tau deposition plays a potential role in AD heterogeneity. METHODS: F-Florzolotau]. Based on the absolute global tau interhemispheric differences, each cohort was divided into two groups (asymmetric versus symmetric tau distribution). The two groups were cross-sectionally compared in terms of demographic, cognitive characteristics, and pathological burden. The cognitive decline trajectories were analyzed longitudinally. RESULTS: Fourteen (23.3%) and 42 (48.3%) patients in the ADNI and SMS cohorts showed an asymmetric tau distribution, respectively. An asymmetric tau distribution was associated with an earlier age at disease onset (proportion of early-onset AD: ADNI/SMS/combined cohorts, p = 0.093/0.026/0.001) and more severe pathological burden (i.e., global tau burden: ADNI/SMS cohorts, p < 0.001/= 0.007). And patients with an asymmetric tau distribution were characterized by a steeper cognitive decline longitudinally (i.e., the annual decline of Mini-Mental Status Examination score: ADNI/SMS/combined cohorts, p = 0.053 / 0.035 / < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetry in tau deposition, which may be associated with an earlier age at onset, more severe pathological burden, and a steeper cognitive decline, is potentially an important characteristic of AD heterogeneity.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".