Connectivity as a universal predictor of tau spreading in typical and atypical Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is a strong link between tau and progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), necessitating an understanding of tau spreading mechanisms. Prior research, predominantly in typical AD, suggested that tau propagates from epicenters (regions with earliest tau) to functionally connected regions. However, given the constrained spatial heterogeneity of tau in typical AD, validating this connectivity‐based tau spreading model in AD variants with distinct tau deposition patterns is crucial. Method We included 269 amyloid‐β‐positive (PET/CSF) individuals with clinically diagnosed atypical AD (113 posterior cortical atrophy, PCA‐AD; 83 logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, lvPPA‐AD; 33 behavioural variant AD, bvAD; 40 corticobasal syndrome, CBS‐AD) and 68 with typical AD from 12 international cohorts, who underwent tau‐PET (54% [18F]AV1451/[18F]flortaucipir/Tauvid, 27% [18F]MK6240, 19% [18F]PI2620). Using Gaussian mixture modeling including amyloid‐β‐negative controls, cross‐sectional tau‐PET standardized uptake value ratios within Schaefer‐200 atlas regions were transformed to tau positivity probabilities. Tau epicenters were defined as the 5% regions with highest tau positivity probabilities. For each variant, the association between functional connectivity‐based distance (using the 30% strongest positive region‐to‐region connections of a group‐average connectivity matrix from ADNI elderly controls) and tau‐PET covariance (group‐average correlation per region pair) was assessed through linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, site, and Euclidean distance. Regions were categorized based on functional proximity to the epicenter (quartiles 1‐4) and tau positivity probabilities were assessed accordingly. Result Tau positivity probabilities matched clinical variants, with a posterior pattern in PCA‐AD, left‐hemispheric dominant pattern in lvPPA‐AD, widespread pattern in bvAD, sensorimotor cortex involvement in CBS‐AD, and temporo‐parietal predominance in typical AD (Figure 1). In line with this, tau epicenters were highly heterogeneous across variants (Figure 1). In all variants, greater tau‐PET covariance was associated with shorter functional connectivity‐based distance (Figure 2). We observed that regions in closer functional proximity to the epicenter exhibited higher tau positivity probabilities than regions functionally further away (p<0.05, Figure 3). Conclusion This multi‐center study shows that the brain’s functional architecture serves as a universal predictor of tau spreading in AD. Since tau is a key driver of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline in AD, this finding holds potential for personalized medicine and defining participant‐specific endpoints in clinical trials.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".