ArticleBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2026
Data-driven thresholds for standardized classification of severe Alzheimer's disease neuropathology using digital neuropathology.
Article in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease neuropathological changes (ADNC)-operationalized with semi-quantitative parameters-represent the consensus-based gold standard for diagnostic evaluation of disease severity. Although useful, ADNC diagnostic frameworks have limitations, particularly in advanced disease stages where pathological severity varies widely within a given diagnostic category. Further, some individuals lacking cognitive impairment are inappropriately categorized as having severe ADNC. In this study, quantitative pathology metrics and alternative tissue sampling schemes were integrated with data about premortem cognitive status, in order to derive clinically informed neuropathologic diagnostic thresholds. Specific goals of the current study were to generate data-driven, standardized diagnostic cut-points, with the most severe stages of ADNC having consistent implications: Braak neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) stage V cases being always impaired (MCI or demented) and Braak NFT stage VI cases being always demented. Utilizing whole-slide imaging and AI-based image analysis, object-based (NFT counts) and pixel-based (phosphorylated tau [pTau] burden) quantifications were compared across neocortical regions in three subsamples of cases from the University of Kentucky ADRC autopsy cohort (n = 329, all with clinical evaluations within 2 years of death). We also compared between HALO- and Aperio-based platform results, and between AT8 and PHF-1 pTau antibodies. Applying refined thresholds enabled reclassification of cases previously misaligned with their digitally determined appropriate status: 17% of cases were thus reclassified. The use of commercially available software, standardized classifier architectures, and interoperable analysis pipelines facilitated scalable and reproducible digital quantification. Cross-institutional validation at University of Texas San Antonio, with the same algorithms applied in both research centers, confirmed near-perfect agreement of pathology counts, underscoring shareability and the feasibility of harmonized digital workflows for collaborative research and diagnostic purposes. These findings support the integration of quantitative digital pathology into standard neuropathological protocols and provide a scalable model for future multi-site studies. Enabling comparisons of analytical platforms, pTau antibodies, and anatomical sampling strategies, an updated workflow demonstrated high reproducibility and consistent clinical-pathological correlations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42035704What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.