MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896964182 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2337

O1‐02‐02: THE ANTI‐AMYLOID TREATMENT IN ASYMPTOMATIC ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (A4) STUDY: REPORT OF SCREENING DATA RESULTS

2018· article· en· W2896964182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reisa A. Sperling, Michael Donohue, Rema Raman, Chung‐Kai Sun, R. Yaari, Eric Siemers, Keith A. Johnson, Paul Aisen

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineAsymptomaticCognitionMarital statusApolipoprotein EAmyloid (mycology)Internal medicineGenotypingDiseaseGerontologyPsychiatryGenotypePathologyPopulationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The A4 Study is a secondary prevention trial of an anti-amyloid antibody in clinically normal (CN) individuals age 65-85 with elevated brain amyloid on screening PET scan. Here we report the demographic, cognitive, APOE genotype and amyloid PET data from the A4 screening process. CN participants (CDR=0; MMSE 25-30) were screened at 67 centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Screening assessments obtained prior to Amyloid PET imaging included cognitive testing with the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC), a participant and study partner reported functional assessment, the Cognitive Function Index (CFI), and APOE genotyping. A quantitative SUVr/visual read algorithm of F-Florbetapir Amyloid PET classified participants as Elevated Amyloid (Aβ+), eligible to continue in screening, or Not Elevated (Aβ-). 6762 participants (14% minority) were screened. Amyloid PET was acquired on 4487 participants, with 1323 (29.5%) classified as Aβ+ (mean SUVr=1.33±0.18). Aβ+ participants were slightly older than Aβ-, with no differences in sex, education, marital or retirement status (Table 1). Minority participants across multiple races were less likely to be Aβ+. Aβ+ were more likely to have a family history of dementia (74% Aβ+ vs. 68% Aβ-) and more likely to carry at least one APOEε4 allele (58% Aβ+ vs. 25% Aβ-). Aβ+ showed worse performance on screening PACC (p< 0.0001, adjusted for age, gender, and education; Table 2). Aβ+ participants and their study partners reported higher scores on CFI (p<0.0001). A4 completed enrollment in December 2017 with 1169 Aβ+ randomized participants. Aβ+ participants eligible for the A4 Study show similar demographic characteristics to AD dementia populations with nearly 60% APOEε4 carriers. Despite the relatively narrow range of normal cognitive performance required for A4 eligibility, Aβ+ performed significantly lower on screening cognitive tests and had higher rates of self- and study partner-reported cognitive functional decline. The A4 Study demonstrates the feasibility of enrolling a preclinical AD population in a large prevention trial that will test whether an anti-amyloid agent can slow cognitive decline during the preclinical stage of 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207