MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neuroimaging and Other Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: The Changing Landscape of Early Detection

2013· review· en· W2111420081 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shannon L. Risacher, Andrew J. Saykin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiomarkerNeuroimagingDiffusion MRIPositron emission tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceDiseaseMedicineNeurochemicalAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyPathologyRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this review is to provide an overview of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with emphasis on neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. We first review biomarker changes in patients with late-onset AD, including findings from studies using structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), advanced MRI techniques (diffusion tensor imaging, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, perfusion), positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose, amyloid tracers, and other neurochemical tracers, and CSF protein levels. Next, we evaluate findings from these biomarkers in preclinical and prodromal stages of AD including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and pre-MCI conditions conferring elevated risk. We then discuss related findings in patients with dominantly inherited AD. We conclude with a discussion of the current theoretical framework for the role of biomarkers in AD and emergent directions for AD biomarker research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations147
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Clinical PsychologySame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207