The impact of kidney function on Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers: implications for predicting amyloid-β positivity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Impaired kidney function has a potential confounding effect on blood biomarker levels, including biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Given the imminent use of certain blood biomarkers in the routine diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected AD, knowledge on the potential impact of comorbidities on the utility of blood biomarkers is important. We aimed to evaluate the association between kidney function, assessed through estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated from plasma creatinine and AD blood biomarkers, as well as their influence over predicting Aβ-positivity. Methods We included 242 participants from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) cohort, comprising cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU; n = 124), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 58), AD dementia ( n = 34), and non-AD dementia ( n = 26) patients all characterized by [ 18 F] AZD-4694. Plasma samples were analyzed for Aβ42, Aβ40, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181), 217 ( p -tau217), 231 (p-tau231) and N-terminal containing tau fragments (NTA-tau) using Simoa technology. Kidney function was assessed by eGFR in mL/min/1.73 m 2 , based on plasma creatinine levels, age, and sex. Participants were also stratified according to their eGFR-indexed stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the association between eGFR and blood biomarker levels with linear models and assessed whether eGFR provided added predictive value to determine Aβ-positivity with logistic regression models. Results Biomarker concentrations were highest in individuals with CKD stage 3, followed by stages 2 and 1, but differences were only significant for NfL, Aβ42, and Aβ40 (not Aβ42/Aβ40). All investigated biomarkers showed significant associations with eGFR except plasma NTA-tau, with stronger relationships observed for Aβ40 and NfL. However, after adjusting for either age, sex or Aβ-PET SUVr, the association with eGFR was no longer significant for all biomarkers except Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. When evaluating whether accounting for kidney function could lead to improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, we observed no improvements in model fit (Akaike Information Criterion, AIC) or in discriminative performance (AUC) by adding eGFR to a base model including each plasma biomarker, age, and sex. While covariates like age and sex improved model fit, eGFR contributed minimally, and there were no significant differences in clinical discrimination based on AUC values. Conclusions We found that kidney function seems to be associated with AD blood biomarker concentrations. However, these associations did not remain significant after adjusting for age and sex, except for Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. While covariates such as age and sex improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, including eGFR in the models did not lead to improved prediction for any biomarker. Our findings indicate that renal function, within the normal to mild impairment range, does not seem to have a clinically relevant impact when using highly accurate blood biomarkers, such as p-tau217, in a biomarker-supported diagnosis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».