Immunohistochemical evaluation of a trial of gantenerumab or solanezumab in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD) infer target engagement from Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) and/or fluid biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40. However, these biomarkers measure brain Aβ deposits indirectly and/or incompletely. In contrast, neuropathologic assessments allow direct investigation of treatment effects on brain Aβ deposits-and on potentially myriad 'downstream' pathologic features. From a clinical trial of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies in dominantly inherited AD (DIAD), in the largest study of its kind, we measured immunohistochemistry area fractions (AFs) for Aβ deposits (10D5), tauopathy (PHF1), microgliosis (IBA1), and astrocytosis (GFAP) in 10 brain regions from 10 trial cases-gantenerumab (n = 4), solanezumab (n = 4), placebo/no treatment (n = 2)-and 10 DIAD observational study cases. Strikingly, in proportion to total drug received, Aβ deposit AFs were significantly lower in the gantenerumab arm versus controls in almost all areas examined, including frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital cortices, anterior cingulate, hippocampus, caudate, putamen, thalamus, and cerebellar gray matter; only posterior cingulate and cerebellar white matter comparisons were non-significant. In contrast, AFs of tauopathy, microgliosis, and astrocytosis showed no differences across groups. Our results demonstrate with direct histologic evidence that gantenerumab treatment in DIAD can reduce parenchymal Aβ deposits throughout the brain in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting that more complete removal may be possible with earlier and more aggressive treatment regimens. Although AFs of tauopathy, microgliosis, and astrocytosis showed no clear response to partial Aβ removal in this limited autopsy cohort, future examination of these cases with more sensitive techniques (e.g., mass spectrometry) may reveal more subtle 'downstream' effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".