Tau exacerbates the development of distinct neuropsychiatric symptoms in late braak stage – the head study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies showed that neuroinflammation plays a key role in triggering specific neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), such as irritability and agitation, in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). While prior studies showed an association between tau pathology and all NPS domains, the extent to which tau influences each specific NPS domain remains unclear. Here, we aim to investigate the association of tau and NPS domains in the AD continuum. We hypothesize that tau plays a comparatively greater effect on the emergence of psychotic symptoms compared to other NPS domains. METHOD: F]MK6240) at the same visit. We selected individuals with an NPI-Q total score ≥1. Tau SUVR values were tailored with a mask from Braak stages I-VI, using the inferior cerebellar gray matter as reference region. Leave-one-out voxel wise and linear regression tested the association between each NPI-Q domain and biomarkers accounting for age, sex, cognitive status, and study site. RESULT: CI individuals had significantly higher NPI-Q score and Braak VI PET SUVR than CU individuals (Table 1). NPI-Q score was significantly associated with tau-PET in the periRolandic and supplementary motor cortex (Figures 1A). Linear regression showed that NPI-Q associates with tau-PET in the Braak stage VI (Figure 1B). Leave-one-out regression analysis revealed that delusions, motor disturbances, and anxiety contributed most to the association between tau-PET and NPS (Figure 2A, C). These domains presented a higher magnitude of association compared to each other NPI-Q domain (Figure 2B). Notably, irritability, agitation, and disinhibition exerted a negative effect to the association, emphasizing that tau may not play a role in the development of these symptoms (Figure 2A, D) CONCLUSION: Our study supports previous evidence suggesting that irritability and agitation may not be triggered by tau, but rather by other pathological process such as neuroinflammation. These findings provide additional rationale for the therapeutics aiming to mitigate irritability and agitation in AD patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".