Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for neurodegenerative dementias: An update of the Consensus of the Task Force on Biological Markers in Psychiatry of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force takes now the opportunity to extend and update the original paper. New concepts of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the conceptual interactions between AD and dementia due to AD were developed, resulting in two sets for diagnostic/research criteria. Procedures for pre-analytical sample handling, biobanking, analyses and post-analytical interpretation of the results were intensively studied and optimised. A global quality control project was introduced to evaluate and monitor the inter-centre variability in measurements with the goal of harmonisation of results. Contexts of use and how to approach candidate biomarkers in biological specimens other than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), e.g. blood, were precisely defined. Important development was achieved in neuroimaging techniques, including studies comparing amyloid-β positron emission tomography results to fluid-based modalities. Similarly, development in research laboratory technologies, such as ultra-sensitive methods, raises our hopes to further improve analytical and diagnostic accuracy of classic and novel candidate biomarkers. Synergistically, advancement in clinical trials of anti-dementia therapies energises and motivates the efforts to find and optimise the most reliable early diagnostic modalities. Finally, the first studies were published addressing the potential of cost-effectiveness of the biomarkers-based diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders.
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 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".