MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390194755 · doi:10.1002/alz.080772

Antagonistic Amyloid‐β and tau interactions with T1‐weighted/T2‐weighted magnetic resonance ratio in Alzheimer’s disesase continuum

2023· article· en· W4390194755 on OpenAlexaff
Hajin Lim, Joon‐Kyung Seong, Wha‐Jin Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurodegenerationPsychologyMagnetic resonance imagingAmyloid (mycology)Entorhinal cortexPittsburgh compound BAlzheimer's diseaseNeuroscienceChemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceInternal medicineMedicinePathologyDiseasePhysicsHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Tau protein has been reported as a major cause of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. Decrease of T1‐weighted/T2‐weighted magnetic resonace (MR) ratio has been proposed as a measure of demyelination related to neurodegeneration, but some previous researches showed contradictory increase in several brain regions, which was considered as the effecs of other microstructures such as the amyloid‐related iron deposition. Therefore, amyloid β and tau proteins appear to affect the T1w/T2w ratio antagonistically, making their relationship need to be elucidated in order to unambiguously interpret the ratio. Method We obtained 221 individuals which include T1‐ and T2‐weighted MR images, and 18F‐florbetapir‐ and 18F‐flortaucipir‐PET images from ADNI. The subjects were then divided into four subgroups based on the status of global Aβ and tau accumulation amount: A‐T‐, A‐T+, A+T‐, and A+T+. We determined positive amyloid status(A+) as global Aβ PET SUVR > 1.11. When determining tau positivity, we used entorhinal cortex (EC) as the earliest tau accumulation region to selectively include tau‐negative individuals while amyloid is being presented. Group differences in regional T1w/T2w ratio values were evaluated. Result We found significant group differences in various cortical regions, but also observed distinct effects of Aβ and tau for the T1w/T2w difference. First of all, Aβ and tau affect the T1w/T2w ratio in an opposite direction. A+ individuals have greater T1w/T2w ratio values across wide cortical regions compared to A‐ individuals for both T‐ and T+ groups. However, A‐T+ groups have smaller T1w/T2w ratio values than A‐T‐ groups, while the significant group difference was observed across relatively few cortical regions. Second, Aβ has stronger effect on the T1w/T2w ratio than tau. Specifically, the group difference between A+T+ and A+T‐ shows that Aβ increase the ratio values more strongly than tau reduces the ratio values due to greater accumulation of Aβ in the A+T+ than A+T‐. Conclusion In this work, we observed the antagonistic interaction of Aβ and tau with T1w/T2w ratio, while more interestingly, we also found that Aβ causes high T1w/T2w ratio, more than tau causes demyelination, followed by lowering T1w/T2w ratio.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.280 · 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→