MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117299680 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_102950

Accelerated rate of plasma <i>p</i> ‐Tau217 progression in amyloid‐β APOE ɛ4 carriers

2025· article· en· W7117299680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marina P Gonçalves, Tevy Chan, Arthur Macedo, Nesrine Rahmouni, Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Brandon J Hall, Yi‐Ting Wang, Etienne Aumont, Stijn Servaes, Tissot Cecile, Gleb Bezgin, Jaime Fernández Arias, Lydia Trudel, Joseph Therriault, Kely Monica Quispialaya Socualaya, J. K. M. ller Stevenson, Yansheng Zheng, Firoza Z Lussier, Paolo Vitali, Gassan Massarweh, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Henrik Zetterberg, Marcel S. Woo, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApolipoprotein EPlasmaPlasma concentrationHuman plasmaBlood plasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ɛ4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) increases susceptibility to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is associated with reduced responsiveness to amyloid-β (Aβ)-removing therapies. In the context of AD diagnostics and disease-modifying treatments, blood biomarkers have emerged as less invasive, accessible tools for monitoring disease status. This study tested the hypothesis whether APOEɛ4 carriers exhibit differences in plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) levels compared to non-carriers, considering the presence/absence of amyloidosis. METHOD: Participants enrolled in the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) cohort, Montréal, Canada. Cerebral amyloid-β and tau tangles were assessed using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [18F]AZD4694 and [18F]MK6240 tracers. Plasma p-tau217 levels were quantified using commercially available assays (ALZpath and Janssen), while p-tau181 and p-tau231 were measured through in-house Single Molecule Array (Simoa) method. Participants were classified as APOEɛ4 non-carriers (NC) or carriers (C) and further stratified as amyloid-positive (A+) or amyloid-negative (A-) based on PET cut-offs (1.55) or CSF Aβ42/40 ratio (<0.068). Cross-sectional analyses used unpaired FDR-corrected t-tests to compare baseline values between groups. Longitudinal analyses of biomarker progression employed mixed linear effects models. RESULT: 554 participants were included in the cross-sectional analysis (A-NC=260; A-C=92; A+NC=92; A+C=110). At baseline, no significant differences were observed between ɛ4 carriers and non-carriers in plasma p-tau181, p-tau231, and p-tau217 levels in either the A- or A+ groups (Figure 1). Longitudinal data (mean follow-up: 26 months) from 224 participants (A-NC=106; A-C=35; A+NC=37; A+C=46) revealed no significant differences in progression rates for p-tau181 and p-tau231 between carriers and non-carriers, regardless of amyloid status. However, both assays demonstrated accelerated increases in p-tau217 levels among A+ participants (ALZpath: β=0.46, p = 0.02; Janssen: β=0.80, p <0.001), but not in A- individuals (Figure 2). Notably, we detected no significant association between p-tau217 change and the interaction between amyloid beta and APOEɛ4. CONCLUSION: In the presence of amyloidosis, APOEɛ4 carriers accelerate the plasma p-tau217 progression. In contrast, ɛ4 carriership in A+ individuals did not correlate with rates of p-tau181 and p-tau231. An additive interaction between APOEɛ4 carriership and Aβ status was observed. Further investigation is needed to understand the association between APOEɛ4 carriers and AD biomarkers progression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.342
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→