Tau‐neurodegeneration <i>mismatch</i> reveals vulnerability and resilience to comorbidities in Alzheimer's continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variability in relationship of tau-based neurofibrillary tangles (T) and neurodegeneration (N) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) arises from non-specific nature of N, modulated by non-AD co-pathologies, age-related changes, and resilience factors. METHODS: We used regional T-N residual patterns to partition 184 patients within the Alzheimer's continuum into data-driven groups. These were compared with groups from 159 non-AD (amyloid "negative") patients partitioned using cortical thickness, and groups in 98 patients with ante mortem MRI and post mortem tissue for measuring N and T, respectively. We applied the initial T-N residual model to classify 71 patients in an independent cohort into predefined groups. RESULTS: AD groups displayed spatial T-N mismatch patterns resembling neurodegeneration patterns in non-AD groups, similarly associated with non-AD factors and diverging cognitive outcomes. In the autopsy cohort, limbic T-N mismatch correlated with TDP-43 co-pathology. DISCUSSION: T-N mismatch may provide a personalized approach for determining non-AD factors associated with resilience/vulnerability 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".