Identifying amyloid pathology–related cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in a multicohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ) measurement does not parallel to cognitive changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cognitively normal (CN) subjects across different studies. Therefore, identifying novel proteins to characterize symptomatic AD samples is important. METHODS: Proteins were profiled using a multianalyte platform by Rules Based Medicine (MAP-RBM). Due to underlying heterogeneity and unbalanced sample size, we combined subjects (344 AD and 325 CN) from three cohorts: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Penn Center for Neurodegenerative Disease Research of the University of Pennsylvania, and Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis. We focused on samples whose cognitive and amyloid status was consistent. We performed linear regression (accounted for age, gender, number of APOE e4 alleles, and cohort variable) to identify amyloid-related proteins for symptomatic AD subjects in this largest ever CSF-based MAP-RBM study. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used to evaluate if these proteins were related to cognitive impairment changes as measured by mini-mental state examination (MMSE). RESULTS: < .05), of which lipoprotein a (Lp(a)), prolactin (PRL), resistin, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have consistent direction of associations across every individual cohort. VEGF was strongly associated with MMSE scores, followed by pancreatic polypeptide and immunoglobulin A (IgA), suggesting they may be related to staging of AD. DISCUSSION: Lp(a), PRL, IgA, and tissue factor/thromboplastin have never been reported for AD diagnosis in previous individual CSF-based MAP-RBM studies. Although some of our reported analytes are related to AD pathophysiology, others' roles in symptomatic AD samples worth further explorations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".