Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Tau-Atrophy Variability Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer's Disease
Das SR, Lyu X, Duong MT, Xie L, McCollum L, de Flores R, DiCalogero M, Irwin DJ et al.. Annals of neurology, 2021-10-15
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective Tau neurofibrillary tangles (T) are the primary driver of downstream neurodegeneration (N) and subsequent cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there is substantial variability in the T-N relationship - manifested in higher or lower atrophy than expected for level of tau in a given brain region. The goal of this study was to determine if region-based quantitation of this variability allows for identification of underlying modulatory factors, including polypathology. Methods Cortical thickness (N) and 18 F-Flortaucipir SUVR (T) were computed in 104 gray matter regions from a cohort of cognitively-impaired, amyloid-positive (A+) individuals. Region-specific residuals from a robust linear fit between SUVR and cortical thickness were computed as a surrogate for T-N mismatch. A summary T-N mismatch metric defined using residuals were correlated with demographic and imaging-based modulatory factors, and to partition the cohort into data-driven subgroups. Results The summary T-N mismatch metric correlated with underlying factors such as age and burden of white matter hyperintensity lesions. Data-driven subgroups based on clustering of residuals appear to represent different biologically relevant phenotypes, with groups showing distinct spatial patterns of higher or lower atrophy than expected. Interpretation These data support the notion that a measure of deviation from a normative relationship between tau burden and neurodegeneration across brain regions in individuals on the AD continuum captures variability due to multiple underlying factors, and can reveal phenotypes, which if validated, may help identify possible contributors to neurodegeneration in addition to tau, which may ultimately be useful for cohort selection in clinical trials. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:751-762.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Das, SR., Lyu, X., Duong, M. T., Xie, L., McCollum, L., de Flores, R., et al. (2021). Tau-Atrophy Variability Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer's Disease. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26233
Vancouver
Das SR, Lyu X, Duong MT, Xie L, McCollum L, de Flores R, et al. Tau-Atrophy Variability Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer's Disease. Annals of neurology. 2021. doi:10.1002/ana.26233. PMID: 34617306.
BibTeX
@article{das2021-34617306,
author = {Das, SR. and Lyu, X. and Duong, M. T. and Xie, L. and McCollum, L. and de Flores, R. and DiCalogero, M. and Irwin, D. J. and others},
title = {{Tau-Atrophy Variability Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Annals of neurology},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/ana.26233},
pmid = {34617306},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26233}
}
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
- Results The summary T-N mismatch metric correlated with underlying factors such as age and burden of white matter hyperintensity lesions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of neurology) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34617306) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “heterogeneity”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “heterogeneity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.