Implication of tau propagation on neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propagation of tau fibrils correlate closely with neurodegeneration and memory deficits seen during the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although it is not well-established what drives or attenuates tau spreading, new studies on human brain using positron emission tomography (PET) have shed light on how tau phosphorylation, genetic factors, and the initial epicenter of tau accumulation influence tau accumulation and propagation throughout the brain. Here, we review the latest PET studies performed across the entire AD continuum looking at the impact of amyloid load on tau pathology. We also explore the effects of structural, functional, and proximity connectivity on tau spreading in a stereotypical manner in the brain of AD patients. Since tau propagation can be quite heterogenous between individuals, we then consider how the speed and pattern of propagation are influenced by the starting localization of tau accumulation in connected brain regions. We provide an overview of some genetic variants that were shown to accelerate or slow down tau spreading. Finally, we discuss how phosphorylation of certain tau epitopes affect the spreading of tau fibrils. Since tau pathology is an early event in AD pathogenesis and is one of the best predictors of neurodegeneration and memory impairments, understanding the process by which tau spread from one brain region to another could pave the way to novel therapeutic avenues that are efficient during the early stages of the disease, before neurodegeneration induces permanent brain damage and severe memory loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".