A genetics‐based biomarker risk algorithm for predicting risk of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A straightforward, reproducible blood-based test that predicts age dependent risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) could be used as an enrichment tool for clinical development of therapies. This study evaluated the prognostic performance of a genetics-based biomarker risk algorithm (GBRA) established on a combination of Apolipoprotein E (APOE)/Translocase of outer mitochondrial membrane 40 homolog (TOMM40) genotypes and age, then compare it to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, neuroimaging and neurocognitive tests using data from two independent AD cohorts. METHODS: The GBRA was developed using data from the prospective Bryan-ADRC study (n=407; 86 conversion events (mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or late onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD)). The performance of the algorithm was tested using data from the ADNI study (n=660; 457 individuals categorized as MCI or LOAD). RESULTS: The positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of the GBRA are in the range of 70-80%. The relatively high odds ratio (approximately 3-5) and significant net reclassification index (NRI) scores comparing the GBRA to a version based on APOE and age alone support the value of the GBRA in risk prediction for MCI due to LOAD. Performance of the GBRA compares favorably with CSF and imaging (fMRI) biomarkers. In addition, the GBRA "high" and "low" AD-risk categorizations correlated well with pathological CSF biomarker levels, PET amyloid burden and neurocognitive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike dynamic markers (i.e., imaging, protein or lipid markers) that may be influenced by factors unrelated to disease, genomic DNA is easily collected, stable, and the technical methods for measurement are robust, inexpensive, and widely available. The performance characteristics of the GBRA support its use as a pharmacogenetic enrichment tool for LOAD delay of onset clinical trials, and merits further evaluation for its clinical utility in evaluating therapeutic efficacy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".