Diagnostic utility of plasma p‐tau217 differs by Alzheimer's disease tau‐based subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Blood-based biomarkers, most notably plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)217, have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: We applied an unsupervised machine learning approach to tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 606 participants (age 73.95 ± 7.72; 309 female) to identify AD subtypes. Within each subtype, we evaluated plasma p-tau217 levels, their association with regional tau PET uptake, differences between cognitively unimpaired (CU) and cognitively impaired (CI) individuals, and relationships to cognitive performance. Results: Four subtypes were identified: limbic, medial temporal lobe (MTL) sparing, posterior, and lateral temporal (l temporal). Plasma p-tau217 was elevated in CI versus CU in limbic, posterior, and l temporal subtypes and strongly associated with tau deposition and cognitive performance. In the MTL-sparing subtype, p-tau217 showed a significant association with tau but no elevation in CI and no relationship to cognition. Discussion: These findings indicate that p-tau217's diagnostic utility varies across AD subtypes, reflecting distinct biological mechanisms not captured by current blood biomarkers. Highlights: Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)217 differentiated cognitively unimpaired from impaired individuals in most subtypes, with the notable limitation of the medial temporal lobe (MTL)-sparing group.P-tau217 level was linked to regional tau accumulation as measured by tau positron emission tomography, across all subtypes.The MTL-sparing subtype appeared to be unique, as p-tau217 was not elevated in cognitively impaired individuals, and there was no clear relationship between p-tau217 levels and cognitive performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".