Tracing the spatial extent of cortical tau over time in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Neuropathological studies defined the paradigm that tau—the pathological hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)—spreads homogenously across individuals from the medial temporal lobe to the neocortex. This staging system is referred to as Braak stages. However, neuroimaging studies have since highlighted significant inter‐regional and inter‐individual differences in tau spreading patterns. We investigated the spatial extent of cortical tau over time in the amnestic AD spectrum. Method We included 195 amyloid‐positive ADNI participants that had at least two tau‐PET scans (90 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 66 with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 39 with AD dementia; average follow‐up 2.6 years). We derived regional thresholds of tau positivity for 64 cortical regions and the amygdalae using Gaussian mixture modeling and applied them to all tau scans. The same approach was used to obtain thresholds for composite regions corresponding to the Braak stages. For each region, we calculated the rate of change in the amount (i.e., standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR] change) of tau pathology and the annual change in the positivity status (i.e., spatial extent change). These rates were compared between diagnostic groups using linear mixed models. Result Across diagnostic groups, change in tau positivity followed Braak staging; over 90% of participants positive at follow‐up either progressed or were already positive on a previous Braak stage at baseline (Fig‐1AI) and greater SUVR change was observed in temporal regions (Fig‐1B). However, across the brain, there was heterogeneity between individual patterns of tau positivity progression (Fig‐1AII). This heterogeneity was most striking in MCI patients, where many regions progressed from low to high levels of tau (Fig‐1C). Regional SUVR change did not differ between participants with AD or with MCI (Fig‐2A), but participants with MCI showed the fastest change in regional positivity compared to participants with AD and CU participants. (Fig‐2B) Conclusion While tau propagation follows Braak staging, inter‐individual differences can be found by considering a fine‐grained approach of regional progression to positivity. Furthermore, participants with MCI have the highest number of regions becoming abnormal annually. Our research pushes the importance of considering the entire brain when studying change in tau pathology, particularly before AD diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".