MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2081336013 · doi:10.1162/15268740252769709

Clinical Study of a Urinary Competitve ELISA for Neural Thread Protein in Alzheimer Disease

2002· article· en· W2081336013 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Munzar, Suzanna Levy, Robert A. Rush, P. Averback

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology & Clinical Neurophysiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsNymox (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrineUrinary systemDementiaMedicineDiseaseGastroenterologyAlzheimer's diseaseInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AD7C-NTP (neural thread protein) is a approximately 41-kD brain protein that is selectively elevated in Alzheimer disease (AD). AD7C-NTP is associated with the pathologic changes of AD, and overexpression of the AD7C-NTP gene is associated with cell death similar to that found in the AD brain. A newly developed competitive ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was tested in urine samples from patients with AD, patients with non-AD dementia, and healthy normal individuals. Mean assay measurement in the AD group (30.1 +/- 10.8) was significantly higher than in the non-AD dementia control group (13.4 +/- 3.4) and in the nondementia control group (14.8 +/- 5.2) (P <.001). Mean assay measurement in early-AD cases (25.3 +/- 7.6) was significantly lower than in other AD cases (33.9 +/- 11.4). Levels of more than 18 units were found in 89% of overall AD cases and in 10% of overall controls. The results further validate urinary AD7C-NTP as a biochemical marker for AD and indicate that the competitive ELISA-format AD7C-NTP test in urine is an accurate method for determining AD7C-NTP levels in AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology & Clinical Neurophysiology→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→