Data from: Intermediate Flortaucipir uptake is associated with A&[beta]-PET & CSF-tau in asymptomatic adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate relationships between tau-PET binding and other established Alzheimer’s disease (AD) markers in cognitively normal individuals at increased risk of AD. Methods: One-hundred-nineteen late-middle-aged and older adults with a parental or multiple-sibling history of AD (PREVENT-AD cohort, mean age=67±5) underwent tau PET ([18F]flortaucipir), β-amyloid (Aβ) PET ([18F]NAV4694), and cognitive assessment. A subsample of 74 participants also had CSF phosphorylated (p)-tau data available. We investigated regional tau SUVR differences between Aβ-positive and Aβ-negative individuals using general linear models adjusted for age and sex. In regions showing higher flortaucipir binding in Aβ-positive individuals, we assessed whether flortaucipir SUVRs were related to p-tau and cognitive performance. We repeated these analyses iteratively removing the participant with the highest entorhinal flortaucipir SUVR to determine thresholds at which associations with Aβ-PET, CSF p-tau and cognition were detectable. Results: Aβ-positive individuals had higher flortaucipir SUVRs than Aβ-negative ones in limbic, temporal, occipital, and inferior parietal regions. Increased flortaucipir SUVRs in a subset of predominantly medial temporal regions were also associated with increased CSF p-tau and worse cognitive performance. The association of flortaucipir in the entorhinal cortex with CSF p-tau, Aβ, or delayed memory were inapparent among individuals with SUVRs below 1.12, 1.23 and 1.41 respectively. Conclusions: Flortaucipir binding in AD-typical regions is associated with established AD markers. Except for the association of flortaucipir-binding with cognition, these findings were not driven by results in individuals classified as tau-positive according to conventional tau thresholds. These observations suggest that early (sub-threshold) elevation in flortaucipir signal is clinically meaningful.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.160 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".