Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Neuronal dysfunction and cognitive deterioration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely caused by multiple pathophysiological factors. However, mechanistic evidence in humans remains scarce, requiring improved non-invasive techniques and integrative models. We introduce personalized AD computational models built on whole-brain Wilson-Cowan oscillators and incorporating resting-state functional MRI, amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau-PET from 132 individuals in the AD spectrum to evaluate the direct impact of toxic protein deposition on neuronal activity. This subject-specific approach uncovers key patho-mechanistic interactions, including synergistic Aβ and tau effects on cognitive impairment and neuronal excitability increases with disease progression. The data-derived neuronal excitability values strongly predict clinically relevant AD plasma biomarker concentrations (p-tau217, p-tau231, p-tau181, GFAP) and grey matter atrophy obtained through voxel-based morphometry. Furthermore, reconstructed EEG proxy quantities show the hallmark AD electrophysiological alterations (theta band activity enhancement and alpha reductions) which occur with Aβ-positivity and after limbic tau involvement. Microglial activation influences on neuronal activity are less definitive, potentially due to neuroimaging limitations in mapping neuroprotective vs detrimental activation phenotypes. Mechanistic brain activity models can further clarify intricate neurodegenerative processes and accelerate preventive/treatment interventions.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Sanchez-Rodriguez, L. M., Bezgin, G., Carbonell, F., Therriault, J., Fernandez-Arias, J., Servaes, S., et al. (2024). Personalized whole-brain neural mass models reveal combined Aβ and tau hyperexcitable influences in Alzheimer's disease. Communications biology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06217-2

Vancouver

Sanchez-Rodriguez LM, Bezgin G, Carbonell F, Therriault J, Fernandez-Arias J, Servaes S, et al. Personalized whole-brain neural mass models reveal combined Aβ and tau hyperexcitable influences in Alzheimer's disease. Communications biology. 2024. doi:10.1038/s42003-024-06217-2. PMID: 38704445.

BibTeX

@article{sanchezrodriguez2024-38704445,
  author  = {Sanchez-Rodriguez, L. M. and Bezgin, G. and Carbonell, F. and Therriault, J. and Fernandez-Arias, J. and Servaes, S. and Rahmouni, N. and Tissot, C. and others},
  title   = {{Personalized whole-brain neural mass models reveal combined Aβ and tau hyperexcitable influences in Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Communications biology},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1038/s42003-024-06217-2},
  pmid    = {38704445},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06217-2}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Communications biology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 132 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38704445)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 31 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “neural”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neural”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →