Predicting Cognitive Decline for Non-Demented Adults with High Burden of Tau Pathology, Independent of Amyloid Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal tau proteins are independent contributors to cognitive impairment. Nevertheless, not all individuals exposed to high-level tau pathology will develop cognitive dysfunction. We aimed to construct a model to predict cognitive trajectory for this high-risk population. METHOD: Longitudinal data of 181 non-demented adults (mean age= 73.1; female= 45%), who were determined to have high cerebral burden of abnormal tau by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measurements of phosphorylated tau (ptau181) or total tau, were derived from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Cognitive decline was defined as Mini-Mental State Examination scores decline ≥ 3 over three years. A predictive nomogram was constructed using stepwise backward regression method. The discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the nomogram were evaluated. The model was validated in another 189 non-demented adults via a cross-sectional set (n=149, mean age = 73.9, female = 51%) and a longitudinal set (n= 40, mean age = 75, female = 48%). Finally, the relationships of the calculated risk scores with cognitive decline and risk of Alzheimer's disease were examined during an extended 8-year follow-up. RESULT: Lower volume of hippocampus (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37, p< 0.001), lower levels of CSF sTREM2 (OR = 0.76, p = 0.003), higher scores of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (OR = 1.15, p = 0.001) and Functional Activities Questionnaire (OR = 1.16, p = 0.016), and number of APOE ε4 (OR = 1.88, p = 0.039) were associated with higher risk of cognitive decline independent of the amyloid status and were included in the final model. The nomogram had an area of under curve (AUC) value of 0.91 for training set, 0.93 for cross-sectional validation set, and 0.91 for longitudinal validation set. Over the 8-year follow-up, the high-risk group exhibited faster cognitive decline (p< 0.001) and a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's dementia (HR= 6.21, 95% CI= 3.61-10.66, p< 0.001 ). CONCLUSION: APOE ε4 status, brain reserve capability, neuroinflammatory marker, and neuropsychological scores can help predict cognitive decline in non-demented adults with high burden of tau pathology, independent of the presence of amyloid pathology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".