MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390194836 · doi:10.1002/alz.076833

The impact of young controls in the detection of tau load in cognitively impaired and asymptomatic elderly

2023· article· en· W4390194836 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur C. Macedo, Cécile Tissot, Joseph Therriault, Nesrine Rahmouni, Stijn Servaes, Jaime Fernández Arias, Yi‐Ting Wang, Étienne Aumont, Kely Quispialaya Socualaya, Firoza Z Lussier, Jenna Stevenson, Tahnia Nazneen, Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Thomas K. Karikari, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Nicholas J. Ashton, Henrik Zetterberg, Kaj Blennow, Tharick A. Pascoal, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaBiomarkerAsymptomaticNeocortexStandardized uptake valuePsychologyPopulationVoxelPositron emission tomographyMedicineAudiologyInternal medicineAlzheimer's diseasePathologyNeuroscienceDiseaseBiologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neuropathological observations report incipient tau accumulation in the human brain starting in the third decade of life, with the proportion of individuals with some degree of tau deposition increasing with age. Given the high prevalence of tau positive cases among cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults, one may question whether these individuals constitute an ideal reference group when assessing tau load in symptomatic population. Here, we compare tau biomarker levels of participants with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and CU of different ages. Method We evaluated 35 CU young individuals (aged <26 years) and 124 amyloid‐beta (Aβ)‐ elderly, considered the two control groups. We also assessed 42 Aβ+ CU and 122 Aβ+ cognitively impaired (CI) individuals, diagnosed with either mild cognitive impairment or AD dementia. Participants were assessed with 18F‐MK6240 positron emission tomography (PET) and CSF and plasma pTau181, 217, 231 and 235. We used linear regression to perform voxel‐wise comparisons of tau‐PET signal between groups. We compared the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in medial‐temporal and Braak‐like regions‐of‐interest (ROI) and fluid biomarkers levels using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Result In the voxel‐wise comparisons (Figure 1A‐E), CI participants presented more widespread cortical signal than control groups. Less signal in the parietal cortex was observed in the comparison with CU young. Higher t‐values were observed in Aβ+ CU individuals in the medial temporal region, compared to both control groups, and adjacent neocortex, especially compared to CU young. Temporal and Braak V‐VI SUVR were higher in CI but not in Aβ+ CU individuals compared to controls. Moreover, Braak I‐II and III‐IV SUVR and the fluid biomarkers levels were higher in both Aβ+ groups compared to controls (Figures 2A‐D; 3A‐G). Importantly, Braak I‐II SUVR and the CSF biomarkers levels were higher in CU old Aβ‐ versus young. Conclusion Here, we provide in vivo evidence that tau‐load in age‐matched Aβ‐ controls constitutes a bias for identifying tau pathology, particularly in individuals at early stages of AD pathophysiology. Age‐related tau load should be considered when selecting control groups to assess tau in symptomatic populations, especially those with early AD, and when defining criteria for tau abnormality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→