Multi-pathological contributions toward atrophy patterns in the Alzheimer’s disease continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Heterogeneity in downstream atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is predominantly investigated in relation to pathological hallmarks (Aβ, tau) and co-pathologies (cerebrovascular burden) independently. However, the proportional contribution of each pathology in determining atrophy pattern remains unclear. We assessed heterogeneity in atrophy using two recently conceptualized dimensions: typicality (typical AD atrophy at the center and deviant atypical atrophy on either extreme including limbic predominant to hippocampal sparing patterns) and severity (overall neurodegeneration spanning minimal atrophy to diffuse typical AD atrophy) in relation to Aβ, tau, and cerebrovascular burden. Methods We included 149 Aβ + individuals on the AD continuum (cognitively normal, prodromal AD, AD dementia) and 163 Aβ− cognitively normal individuals from the ADNI. We modeled heterogeneity in MRI-based atrophy with continuous-scales of typicality (ratio of hippocampus to cortical volume) and severity (total gray matter volume). Partial correlation models investigated the association of typicality/severity with (a) Aβ (global Aβ PET centiloid), tau (global tau PET SUVR), cerebrovascular (total white matter hypointensity volume) burden (b) four cognitive domains (memory, executive function, language, visuospatial composites). Using multiple regression, we assessed the association of each pathological burden and typicality/severity with cognition. Results (a) In the AD continuum, typicality ( r = −0.31, p < 0.001) and severity ( r = −0.37, p < 0.001) were associated with tau burden after controlling for Aβ, cerebrovascular burden and age. Findings imply greater tau pathology in limbic predominant atrophy and diffuse atrophy. (b) Typicality was associated with memory ( r = 0.49, p < 0.001) and language scores ( r = 0.19, p = 0.02). Severity was associated with memory ( r = 0.26, p < 0.001), executive function ( r = 0.24, p = 0.003) and language scores ( r = 0.29, p < 0.001). Findings imply better cognitive performance in hippocampal sparing and minimal atrophy patterns. Beyond typicality/severity, tau burden but not Aβ and cerebrovascular burden explained cognition. Conclusion In the AD continuum, atrophy-based severity was more strongly associated with tau burden than typicality after accounting for Aβ and cerebrovascular burden. Cognitive performance in memory, executive function and language domains was explained by typicality and/or severity and additionally tau pathology. Typicality and severity may differentially reflect burden arising from tau pathology but not Aβ or cerebrovascular pathologies which need to be accounted for when investigating AD heterogeneity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".