MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116961215 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_110048

Hemispheric Asymmetry of Amyloid Deposition Influences Asymmetric Tau Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease

2025· article· en· W7116961215 on OpenAlexaff
Toomas Erik Anijärv, Ruben Smith, Lyduine E. Collij, Harry H. Behjat, Alexa Pichet Binette, Jonathan Rittmo, Lena Karlsson, Olof Strandberg, Danielle van Westen, Jacob W. Vogel, Erik Stomrud, Sebastian Palmqvist, Niklas Mattsson‐Carlgren, Rik Ossenkoppele, Nicola Spotorno, Oskar H. Hansson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTau pathologyDiseaseAsymmetryVulnerability (computing)Degenerative diseaseAmyloid (mycology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tau pathology distribution in Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows individual spatial heterogeneity, including hemispheric asymmetry. The mechanisms underlying this asymmetry remain unclear. This study explored whether tau asymmetry is linked to reduced inter-hemispheric connectivity, potentially restricting tau spread, or reflects asymmetry in amyloid-beta (Aβ) distribution, indicating hemisphere-specific vulnerability to early Aβ pathology. METHOD: The study included 837 Aβ-positive (CSF Aβ42/40<0.08 or cortical Aβ-PET>1.033) participants from the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort with available tau-PET scan(s). A cross-sectional subsample of 452 subjects with evidence of tau pathology based on temporal meta-ROI (Braak I-IV; SUVR>1.362) was selected and categorised as left asymmetric (n = 102), symmetric (n = 306), or right asymmetric (n = 44) using a laterality index (LI; see Figure 1). First, edge-wise inter-hemispheric structural (diffusion-MRI, n = 352) and functional (rs-fMRI, n = 318) connectivity were compared between the tau asymmetry groups using the Desikan-Killiany parcellation. Only the top 10% inter-hemispheric connections identified in a separate control sample were analysed. Second, the association between Aβ and tau laterality patterns was investigated using linear regression on LI values and validated in three independent cohorts (OASIS-3, A4, ADNI). Finally, in a longitudinal subsample (n = 289; average follow-up = 2.9 years) of Aβ-positive participants with multiple tau-PET scans, stratified into A+T- (n = 180) and A+T+ (n = 109) groups based on pathology at baseline, linear mixed effect models were used to assess the association between baseline Aβ laterality and tau laterality change over time. RESULT: Cross-sectionally, no differences in average edge-wise inter-hemispheric functional or structural connectivity were found between tau asymmetric and symmetric groups (Figure 2a). In contrast, a strong association was observed between tau and Aβ laterality patterns (Figure 2b; β=0.632, p <0.001), which was replicated in three independent cohorts (Figure 2c; all p <0.005). In the longitudinal A+ sample, the degree of Aβ asymmetry at baseline predicted progression of tau laterality over time (Figure 3a; β=0.025, p = 0.028), with the strongest interaction effect in the Braak III-IV meta-ROI in A+T- individuals (Figure 3b; β=0.080, p <0.001) but not in A+T+ (Figure 3c). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that tau asymmetry is not associated with differences in macro-scale inter-hemispheric individual connectivity but reflects hemispheric differences in vulnerability to Aβ pathology.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→