MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406222302 · doi:10.1002/alz.094118

Characterization of plasma biomarkers of individuals with amyloid‐independent increased tau positron‐emission tomography uptake

2024· article· en· W4406222302 on OpenAlexaff
Tevy Chan, Joseph Therriault, Étienne Aumont, Jaime Fernández Arias, Arthur C. Macedo, Nesrine Rahmouni, Stijn Servaes, Lydia Trudel, Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Yansheng Zheng, Kely Monica Quispialaya Socualaya, Sulantha Mathotaarachchi, Jenna Stevenson, Wan Lu Jia, Takashi Matsudaira, Brandon J. Hall, Firoza Z Lussier, Serge Gauthier, Gallen Triana‐Baltzer, Hartmuth C. Kolb, Thomas K. Karikari, Nicholas J. Ashton, Andréa L. Benedet, Henrik Zetterberg, Kaj Blennow, Tharick A. Pascoal, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTauopathyPositron emission tomographyInternal medicineMedicineDementiaPsychologyOncologyAmyloid (mycology)PathologyEndocrinologyNuclear medicineDiseaseNeurodegeneration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Increased uptake on Tau positron‐emission tomography (PET) is sometimes observed in the absence of amyloid ß accumulation. This A‐T+ PET profile might represent primary age‐related tauopathy (PART), an amyloid ß‐independent 3R/4R tauopathy observed in aging brains. Although A‐T+ individuals have been shown to follow a different cognitive trajectory compared to A‐T‐ and A+T+ individuals, it remains unknown how they differ in terms of plasma biomarkers. Here, we aim to characterize the plasma biomarkers of A‐T+ individuals. Method This is a cross‐sectional study with data from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) cohort. Participants were classified into four categories based on their amyloid ß ([18F]AZD4694) and Tau ([18F]MK6240) PET status (A‐T‐, A+T‐, A+T+ and A‐T+). Plasma biomarkers phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)181, p‐tau217, p‐tau231, total tau (t‐tau), neurofilament light (NfL) and GFAP were compared using the Kruskal‐Wallis test with post hoc Benjamini‐Hochberg (BH) correction. Discriminative performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Result Among the total 468 participants, 64 (13.7%) had A‐T+ PET status. The A‐T+ PET participants had a mean age 66.9 years (SD: 12.8), with 62.5% women and 39.1% showing cognitive impairment. Plasma p‐tau181, p‐tau217, p‐tau231 and GFAP were significantly higher in A+T+ individuals compared to A‐T+ (all p < 0.001). On the other hand, plasma p‐tau181 and 217 were significantly different between A‐T‐ vs A‐T+ (p<0.05), but not p‐tau231 and plasma GFAP. No significant differences were found in t‐tau or NfL regarding A‐T‐. Plasma p‐tau217 and plasma GFAP had the highest discriminative accuracies for A‐T+ vs A+T+ (AUROC: 0.860 and 0.836 respectively). Conclusion Our data suggest that individuals with an A‐T+ PET status exhibit a different plasma biomarker profile than those with A+T+ and A‐T‐ status. Further characterization of fluid biomarkers could help identify this group of individuals and facilitate the differential diagnosis of adults with cognitive impairment. Furthermore, our results lend support to the use of plasma biomarkers for identifying amyloid ß PET positivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→