MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412671952 · doi:10.1101/2025.07.25.25332195

Tau-Clinical Mismatch Identifies Individuals with Co-Pathology and Predicts Clinical Trajectory

2025· preprint· en· W4412671952 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher Brown, Nidhi S. Mundada, Katheryn A Q Cousins, Niyousha Sadeghpour, Xueying Lyu, Emily McGrew, Magdalena Korecka, Alice Chen‐Plotkin, Long Xie, Laura E.M. Wisse, John A. Detre, Corey T. McMillan, Edward B. Lee, Ilya M. Nasrallah, Sandhitsu R. Das, Dawn Mechanic‐Hamilton, Paul A. Yushkevich, Leslie M. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaPennsylvania Department of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsTrajectoryPsychologyMedicinePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance The heterogeneous course of Alzheimer’s disease makes it difficult to predict individuals’ cognitive trajectories, which is particularly important in the era of disease modifying therapy. Identifying individuals more likely to have co-pathology and differing disease courses using clinically practical tools remains a critical gap. Objective To evaluate tau-clinical mismatch for identifying resilient and vulnerable individuals and compare levels of co-pathology and clinical trajectories between groups. Design, Setting, and Participants Participants were selected from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI, inclusion from 2005-2024), Penn Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center Cohort (Penn-ADRC, inclusion from 2002-2025), and Penn Anti-amyloid Therapy Monitoring (Penn-ATM) cohort (inclusion from 2024-2025). All participants were amyloid-β positive, had clinical assessment, and measures of Tau-PET or plasma p-tau217 available. Exposures Clinical assessment (CDR-SB) and tau burden (tau-PET or p-tau 217 ) for mismatch group classification. Main Outcomes and Measures Cross-sectional measures of neurodegeneration (medial temporal lobe volume and thickness, cortical thickness, TAR DNA-binding protein 43 [TDP-43] imaging signature), α-synuclein cerebrospinal fluid seed-amplification assay, longitudinal CDR-SB Results 365 ADNI Tau-PET participants (ages 55-93, 52.6% women) and 524 ADNI p-tau 217 participants (ages 56-95, 49.0% women) were used to generate tau-clinical mismatch models with 55.6-57.1% classified as canonical (CDR-SB ∼ Tau), 23.7-24.7% as resilient (CDR-SB < Tau), and 19.3-19.7% as vulnerable (CDR-SB > Tau). Groups showed diverging clinical courses with earlier cognitive impairment seen in vulnerable groups and later impairment in resilient groups. Vulnerable groups showed higher frequencies of co-pathology, with TDP-43 neurodegeneration patterns and α-synuclein positivity. Similar findings were seen when applying these models to an independent dataset of 244 individuals (54-92 age, 57.0% women) in Penn-ADRC. Finally, these models were applied to a cohort receiving anti-amyloid therapy to show the utility of this method for predicting individual cognitive trajectories during therapy. Conclusion and Relevance Tau-clinical mismatch identifies individuals more likely to harbor co-pathology and have diverging clinical trajectories. Plasma-based models produced similar results to Tau-PET models and could be replicated in independent datasets. These models provide an important tool that can be implemented in clinical practice to provide improved individualized prognosis and, potentially, monitoring of response to disease-modifying therapy.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→