MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119959280 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_107663

Imaging‐based biological staging associates with brain atrophy in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

2025· article· en· W7119959280 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Fontura Brasil Barcellos, João Pedro Ferrari‐Souza, Isabela Just de Jesus Vanni, Marco Antônio Albini Valer, Andrei Bieger, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, Firoza Z Lussier, Wagner S. Brum, Cristiano Schaffer Aguzzoli, Anderson Silva Corin, Marco Antônio De Bastiani, Giovanna Carello‐Collar, Wyllians Vendramini Borelli, Nesrine Rahmouni, Joseph Therriault, Lydia Trudel, Arthur Macedo, Pamela C.L. Ferreira, Guilherme Povala, Bruna Bellaver, Diogo O. Souza, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Eduardo R. Zimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseAtrophyNeuroimagingStage (stratigraphy)Isolated brainHuman brain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnostic and staging criteria rely on imaging biomarkers as robust tools for in vivo disease assessment. Among these, cortical brain atrophy is recognized as a key hallmark of disease progression. However, rates of cortical atrophy in preclinical stages remain insufficiently explored within current staging frameworks. In a group of amyloid β‐positive (Aβ+) asymptomatic individuals, we investigated the association of the imaging‐based biological AD staging framework with longitudinal brain atrophy patterns. Methods We included 162 Aβ+ participants from the A4 Study placebo group with available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) for amyloid‐β (Aβ) plaques ([ 18 F]Florbetapir) and tau ([ 18 F]Flortaucipir) at baseline, along with a follow‐up MRI at least 2 years after baseline. Tau positivity in the medial temporal lobe (T MTL +) and in the neocortex (T NEO +) were determined as tau PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of 2.5 standard deviations above the mean derived from a separate population (LEARN substudy) of 55 Aβ‐negative individuals. Groups were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Tukey's multiple comparison test, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results Demographic characteristics of the population are displayed in Table 1. In cross‐sectional analysis, we observed that baseline cortical gray matter volumes differed significantly only between A+T NEO + and A+T− groups ( p = 0.042), with no significant differences between other groups ( p >0.05 for both; Figure 1a). Longitudinally, A+T NEO + individuals exhibited greater rates of cortical atrophy compared to A+T− ( p <0.001) and A+T MTL + ( p = 0.007), along with A+T MTL + individuals showing higher rates of cortical atrophy compared to the A+T− group ( p = 0.042; Figure 1b). Subsequent regional analyses revealed that the A+T NEO + individuals showed higher atrophy compared to both A+T− and A+T MTL + in temporal and parietal regions (Figure 2). Conclusions Our findings reveal that the imaging‐based biological AD staging is closely associated with cortical brain atrophy, showing a gradual acceleration in rates of cortical atrophy across stages. Additionally, our results suggest that serial volumetric measurements of temporoparietal brain regions may be sensitive biomarkers of early disease progression. Taken together, our findings provide valuable insights for applying the imaging‐based biological AD staging in preclinical AD.

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)0.003
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→