Brain network dynamics determine tau presence while regional vulnerability governs tau load in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Alzheimer’s disease (AD), tau pathology accumulates gradually throughout the brain, with clinical decline reflecting tau progression. A comprehensive understanding of, first, whether tau propagation is predominantly governed by connectome-based diffusion, regional vulnerability, or an interplay of both, and second, which types of brain connectivity or regional factors best explain tau propagation, remains crucial for advancing our understanding of AD progression. Here, we apply multi-scale, biologically informed disease progression simulations to human data, to disentangle the influence of local mechanisms on global tau progression patterns in AD. We find that whether tau reaches a brain region (presence) and how much tau accumulates there (load) are governed by different mechanisms. Tau presence patterns are highly consistent across the population, and can be largely explained through synaptic spread through white-matter networks and excitatory-inhibitory dynamics. Meanwhile tau load differs across people, and is driven by a combination of synaptic spread and intrinsic or extrinsic regional properties, including regional β -amyloid load, MAPT gene expression and regional blood flow. Finally, while distinct tau patterns in the population could each be explained by established AD mechanisms, our models highlight a role of distinct brain networks (parietal networks in MTL-sparing AD tau subtype) and neurotransmitter systems (cholinergic system in posterior subtype). Together, this work suggests that network dynamics likely determine the sequence of regional tau progression, while individual-specific tissue-vulnerability factors influence regional tau load.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".