MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551731872 · doi:10.1186/s40035-016-0067-z

Is ApoE ɛ 4 a good biomarker for amyloid pathology in late onset Alzheimer’s disease?

2016· review· en· W2551731872 on OpenAlexaff
Maowen Ba, Min Kong, Xiaofeng Li, Kok Pin Ng, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Serge Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Neurodegeneration · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilChongqing Medical University
KeywordsApolipoprotein EMedicineBiomarkerAmyloid (mycology)PathologyDiseaseNeurologyPositron emission tomographyAlzheimer's diseasePittsburgh compound BBiologyPsychiatryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyloid plaques are pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ1-42) and amyloid positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging are important in diagnosing amyloid pathology in vivo. ɛ4 allele of the Apolipoprotein E gene (ApoE ɛ 4), which is a major genetic risk factor for late onset AD, is an important genetic biomarker for AD pathophysiology. It has been shown that ApoE ɛ 4 is involved in Aβ deposition and formation of amyloid plaques. Studies have suggested the utility of peripheral blood ApoE ɛ 4 in AD diagnosis and risk assessment. However it is still a matter of debate whether ApoE ɛ 4 status would improve prediction of amyloid pathology and represent a cost-effective alternative to amyloid PET or CSF Aβ in resource-limited settings in late onset AD. Recent research suggest that the mean prevalence of PET amyloid-positivity is 95% in ApoE ɛ 4-positive AD patients. This short review aims to provide an updated information on the relationship between ApoE ɛ 4 and amyloid biomarkers.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational NeurodegenerationSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207