Tau‐PET and plasma GFAP association in cognitively unimpaired Aβ‐PET negative individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We showed that astrocyte reactivity, as measured by plasma GFAP levels, influences Aβ mediated tau PET pathology in cognitively unimpaired (CU) Aβ‐positive individuals. However, the link between GFAP and tau PET in individuals without detectable Aβ pathology remains elusive. The aim of the current study is to investigate the association between plasma GFAP and tau PET in CU Aβ PET‐negative individuals. Method We studied 147 CU Aβ PET‐negative participants from the HEAD cohort with plasma GFAP and p ‐tau217, as well as tau PET Flortaucipir and MK6240 data. Aβ positivity was determined by Aβ PET visual reading and Centiloid 12. Voxel‐wise linear regression models adjusted for age and sex tested the association of plasma GFAP and p ‐tau217 with tau PET. Further, the associations of plasma GFAP with peak tau PET SUVR values extracted from voxel‐wise association were fitted with a linear regression model adjusted for age and sex. Result Voxel‐wise analysis showed that plasma GFAP levels, but not plasma p ‐tau217 levels, were associated with tau PET in the medial temporal lobe (e.g., amygdala, entorhinal cortex, hippocampus) predominantly for Flortaucipir tau PET [Figure 1A, B, C, D]. The association between plasma p ‐tau217 and tau PET was weak in Aβ‐negative individuals. These results were similar when Aβ positivity was defined based on Centiloid 12. Furthermore, plasma GFAP and peak tau PET SUVR of Flortaucipir showed stronger association than that of MK6240 [Flortaucipir: β=0.4017, p <0.0001; MK6240: β=0.194, p = 0.0424; Figure 2A, B]. Conclusion We found an association between GFAP levels and tau PET uptake in individuals not expected to exhibit high levels of tau tangle‐related tracer uptake. Further analysis will be designed to elucidate the underpinning of this association, which could represent low levels of tau pathology, astrogliosis, or other factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".