Genetic studies of quantitative MCI and AD phenotypes in ADNI: Progress, opportunities, and plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Genetic data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) have been crucial in advancing the understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology. Here, we provide an update on sample collection, scientific progress and opportunities, conceptual issues, and future plans. METHODS: Lymphoblastoid cell lines and DNA and RNA samples from blood have been collected and banked, and data and biosamples have been widely disseminated. To date, APOE genotyping, genome-wide association study (GWAS), and whole exome and whole genome sequencing data have been obtained and disseminated. RESULTS: ADNI genetic data have been downloaded thousands of times, and >300 publications have resulted, including reports of large-scale GWAS by consortia to which ADNI contributed. Many of the first applications of quantitative endophenotype association studies used ADNI data, including some of the earliest GWAS and pathway-based studies of biospecimen and imaging biomarkers, as well as memory and other clinical/cognitive variables. Other contributions include some of the first whole exome and whole genome sequencing data sets and reports in healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment, and AD. DISCUSSION: Numerous genetic susceptibility and protective markers for AD and disease biomarkers have been identified and replicated using ADNI data and have heavily implicated immune, mitochondrial, cell cycle/fate, and other biological processes. Early sequencing studies suggest that rare and structural variants are likely to account for significant additional phenotypic variation. Longitudinal analyses of transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic, and epigenomic changes will also further elucidate dynamic processes underlying preclinical and prodromal stages of disease. Integration of this unique collection of multiomics data within a systems biology framework will help to separate truly informative markers of early disease mechanisms and potential novel therapeutic targets from the vast background of less relevant biological processes. Fortunately, a broad swath of the scientific community has accepted this grand challenge.
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 | 0.074 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".