MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390196913 · doi:10.1002/alz.081780

Sex modulates the role of astrocyte reactivity in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease

2023· article· en· W4390196913 on OpenAlexaff
Bruna Bellaver, Guilherme Povala, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, João Pedro Ferrari‐Souza, Firoza Z Lussier, Hussein Zalzale, Carolina Soares, Cristiano Schaffer Aguzzoli, Francieli Rohden, Sarah Abbas, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Nicholas J. Ashton, Cécile Tissot, Joseph Therriault, Stijn Servaes, Jenna Stevenson, Nesrine Rahmouni, Oscar L. López, Dana Tudorascu, Victor L. Villemagne, William E. Klunk, Ann D. Cohen, Serge Gauthier, Eduardo R. Zimmer, Henrik Zetterberg, Kaj Blennow, Thomas K. Karikari, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrocyteInternal medicineDiseaseGlial fibrillary acidic proteinMedicineOncologyCohortPsychologyEndocrinologyImmunohistochemistryCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Astrocyte reactivity is a common finding in individuals across the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum. Recently, we demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a marker of astrocyte reactivity, present a stronger association between amyloid‐ß (Aß) and tau pathologies in preclinical AD. Because cohort studies and clinical trials show sex differences in AD biomarkers, we investigated whether the effects of astrocyte reactivity on the association between Aß and tau differs in men and women Method We assessed 1,016 CU individuals from three cohorts with available Aß (plasma/PET), plasma p‐tau181 and GFAP measures. A subset of individuals also has plasma p‐tau217 available (n = 136).Individuals were classified as positive (Ast+) or negative (Ast‐) for astrocyte reactivity using a cutoff based on plasma GFAP of younger Aß‐ individuals.Linear regressions accounting for age and sex were used to evaluate the association between plasma p‐tau epitopes and Aß burden.An interaction between term between Aß*sex was also added to the models.Voxel‐wise associations between biomarkers were tested using linear regressions accounting for age, sex, and adjusting for multiple comparisons. Result We found that Aß burden was associated with plasma p‐tau in Ast+ but not in Ast‐ . Men in the Ast+ group presented a much increased association between Aß with plasma p‐tau181 (ß = 0.71,p<0.0001,Fig.1a) or p‐tau217 (ß = 1.23,p = 0.00086,Fig.1b) compared to women. Similarly, a significant interaction between Aß and sex on plasma p‐tau181 (ß = 0.47,p = 0.005,Fig1a) and p‐tau217 (ß = 1.01,p = 0.002,Fig.1b) was observed only in the Ast+ individuals. Voxel‐wise analysis showed the differences in the topographical association between Aß and plasma p‐tau epitopes between men and women. In men but not women, Aß‐PET associates with plasma p‐tau181 (Fig.2) and plasma p‐tau217 (Fig.3) in important AD regions such as precuneus, posterior cingulate and orbitofrontal cortex. Conclusion A sex effect was observed in the association between Aß burden and plasma p‐tau epitopes in individuals with increased astrocyte reactivity, with the association being stronger in men than women. The greater effect of Aß on tau phosphorylation in the presence of Ast+ in men than in women may have implications for interpretation of biomarkers in clinical trials testing as anti‐Aß therapies already showed different effects between men and women.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→