MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406222781 · doi:10.1002/alz.095514

Characterizing A‐T+ PET participants across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum in the ADNI cohort

2024· article· en· W4406222781 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel C. Bowie, Yara Yakoub, Sylvia Villeneuve

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerNeuropathologyCohortAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeInternal medicineOncologyMedicinePsychologyConcordanceNeuroimagingPositron emission tomographyDementiaDiseaseNuclear medicineNeuroscienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background For individuals on the Alzheimer’s disease trajectory, amyloid positivity generally precedes tau positivity, as defined by PET biomarkers. However, multiple studies report amyloid‐negative tau‐positive PET (A‐T+) participants, whose clinical implications remain unclear. Here, utilizing the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort, we examined how A‐T+ participants differ from other A/T profiles based on cognition, fluid biomarkers, and neuropathology—we also investigated the longitudinal trajectories of A‐T+ participants. Method We studied 806 participants from the ADNI cohort who underwent an initial amyloid (18F‐Florbetaben, FBB, or 18F‐Florbetapir, FBP) and tau (18F‐Flortaucipir, FTP) PET‐scan. The amyloid‐positivity thresholds for FBB and FBP were SUVR = 1.08 and SUVR = 1.11, respectively. Tau‐positivity was set as 2SD above the mean of Aβ‐PET negative CU participants in a neocortical ROI (SUVR = 1.24). The A‐T+ participants were then compared to other A/T biomarker groups in terms of clinical diagnoses, CSF/plasma Aβ and ptau, and hippocampal volume. Using a similar approach, we assessed the concordance of A‐T+ participants using CSF Aβ42 (981 pg/mL) and phosphorylated tau 181 (24.3 pg/mL) instead. Finally, we assessed the cognitive and biomarker trajectories of PET A‐T+ participants. Result Twelve participants were classified as PET A‐T+. Of eleven PET A‐T+ participants with CSF biomarker data, only two (18%) were also CSF A‐T+ (A‐T‐ = 4, A+T‐ = 2, A+T+ = 3). Across all outcomes, A‐T+ (PET or CSF) participants fared similarly to A‐T‐ participants (Figures 1 and 2). Overall, PET A‐T+ exhibited benign longitudinal trajectories (Figure 3). However, one participant, classified as PET A‐T+ but CSF A+T+, displayed concomitant precipitous declines across all cognitive domains, which coincided with an acceleration in neocortical tau burden. Conclusion While displaying pathological levels of cerebral tau, PET A‐T+ participants are highly similarly to PET A‐T‐ participants. Additionally, there is minimal overlap between PET A‐T+ and CSF A‐T+ participants, emphasizing the fact that PET and CSF biomarkers are not interchangeable. While A‐T+ may reflect participants with primary age‐related tauopathy (PART), in which amyloidosis is not the primary driver of tau accumulation, some A‐T+ participants might also have amyloidosis levels that are not yet detectable with PET.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→