MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380884179 · doi:10.1002/alz.060795

Assessing neuroinflammatory differences in FTLD‐Tau vs FTLD‐TDP using free water diffusion

2023· article· en· W4380884179 on OpenAlexaff
Vishaal Sumra, Jordan A. Chad, Anna Vasilevskaya, Daniela Mora‐Fisher, Cassandra Jessica Anor, Karen Misquitta, Anthony E. Lang, Elizabeth Slow, Ofer Pasternak, Maria Carmela Trataglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsParkinson's Clinic of Eastern Toronto & Movement Disorders CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOntario Brain InstituteBaycrest HospitalToronto Western HospitalOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal lobar degenerationNeuroinflammationPrimary progressive aphasiaDiffusion MRIPsychologyNeuroscienceFrontotemporal dementiaPathologicalAphasiaPathologyMedicineDementiaMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is associated with two pathological substrates: Tau and TAR‐DNA‐binding protein 43 (TDP‐43). In‐vivo detection of the pathological substrate is still not possible in FTLD‐related syndromes but progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is consistently associated with FTLD‐Tau while semantic‐variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA) and FTD‐MND (FTD‐ALS) are associated with FTLD‐TDP. In the absence of disease‐specific markers in FTLD, it is necessary to identify biomarkers that can help distinguish FTLD‐Tau and FTLD‐TDP. Recent research has implicated neuroinflammation as a common feature across FTLD subtypes (Bright et al., 2019), however further research is required to investigate neuroinflammatory differences between FTLD‐Tau and FTLD‐TDP, given that microglial burden and activation may differ in FTLD subtypes (Woollacott et al., 2020). The free water fraction (FW), a metric generated from diffusion MRI (dMRI) (Pasternak et al., 2009), is a non‐specific marker of neuroinflammation (Bergamino, Walsh and Stokes, 2021). We will investigate differences in FW diffusion between patients with presumed FTLD‐Tau versus FTLD‐TDP. We hypothesize that differences in neuroinflammation between FTLD‐Tau and FTLD‐TDP can be identified using the free water measure, which may infer neuroinflammatory differences. Method Free‐water maps were generated from dMRI datasets obtained from 43 subjects: 19 with presumed FTLD‐Tau (PSP, mean age = 70), 6 with presumed FTLD‐TDP (mean age = 67, 4 svPPA, 2 FTD‐ALS), and 19 healthy controls (mean age 63). Grey matter (GM) was segmented from T1‐weighted MRIs using FSL’s ‘fast’, projected onto the diffusion MRI space, where free‐water maps were averaged across the GM. The average free water estimates from FTLD‐Tau, FTLD‐TDP and control datasets were tested for group differences using student’s t‐tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with age as a covariate. Results ANCOVA revealed significant differences between the groups (F = 6.47, p < 0.01). Post‐hoc tests showed significantly higher free‐water in FTLD‐Tau (p<0.01) and FTLD‐TDP (p<0.01) compared to controls. There was also higher free water in FTLD‐TDP in comparison to FTLD‐Tau, approaching significance (p = 0.0503) Conclusion Our preliminary data shows significant differences between healthy controls and patients with FTLD‐Tau and FTLD‐TDP and a trend for increased free water in FTLD‐TDP patients vs FTLD‐Tau, which may be indicative of neuroinflammatory differences.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→