Interaction between Aβ and tau on reversion and conversion in mild cognitive impairment patients: After 2-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The role of amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau in reversion and conversion in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ and tau on reversion and conversion and the temporal sequence of their pathogenicity in MCI patients. Methods: 179 MCI patients were recruited from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database and classified into two groups based on cognitive changes after follow-up: reversal group (MCI to cognitively normal) and conversion group (MCI to Alzheimer's disease). CSF biomarkers and cognitive function were measured at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Partial correlation was used to analyze the association between CSF biomarkers and cognitive function, and multivariable logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for cognitive changes at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to evaluate the predictive ability of these risk factors for cognitive changes. Results: The differences in cognitive function and CSF biomarkers between the two groups remained consistent with baseline after 2-year follow-up. After controlling for confounding variables, there was still a correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive function at baseline and 2-year follow-up. Multivariable regression analysis found that at baseline, only Aβ level was independently associated with cognitive changes, while Aβ and tau were both predictive factors after 2-year follow-up. ROC curve analysis revealed that the combination of Aβ and tau [area under the curve (AUC) 0.91, sensitivity 84%, specificity 86%] in predicting cognitive changes after 2-year follow-up had better efficacy than baseline Aβ alone (AUC 0.81). Conclusion: Aβ may precede Tau in causing cognitive changes, and the interaction between the two mediates cognitive changes in patients. This study provides new clinical evidence to support the view that Aβ pathology precedes tau pathology, which together contribute to the changes in cognitive function.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".