Prediction of future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired individuals using measures of soluble phosphorylated tau or tau tangle pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Plasma p-tau217 and Tau-PET are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. In this head-to-head comparison study including 9 cohorts and 1534 individuals, we found that plasma p-tau217 and medial temporal lobe Tau-PET signal showed similar associations with cognitive decline on a global cognitive composite test (R 2 PET =0.32 vs R 2 PLASMA =0.32, p difference =0.812) and with progression to mild cognitive impairment (Hazard ratio[HR] PET =1.56[1.43-1.70] vs HR PLASMA =1.63[1.50-1.77], p difference =0.627). Combined plasma and PET models were superior to the single biomarker models (R 2 =0.36, p<0.01). Furthermore, sequential selection using plasma p-tau217 and then Tau-PET reduced the number of participants required for a clinical trial by 94%, compared to a 75% reduction when using plasma p-tau217 alone. We conclude that plasma p-tau217 and Tau-PET showed similar performance for predicting future cognitive decline in CU individuals, and their sequential use (i.e., plasma p-tau217 followed by Tau-PET in a subset with high plasma p-tau217) is useful for screening in clinical trials in preclinical AD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".