Perspective: Clinical relevance of the dichotomous classification of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers: Should there be a “gray zone”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2018 National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) research framework recently redefined Alzheimer's disease (AD) as a biological construct, based on in vivo biomarkers reflecting key neuropathologic features. Combinations of normal/abnormal levels of three biomarker categories, based on single thresholds, form the AD signature profile that defines the biological disease state as a continuum, independent of clinical symptomatology. While single thresholds may be useful in defining the biological signature profile, we provide evidence that their use in studies with cognitive outcomes merits further consideration. Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative with a focus on cortical amyloid binding, we discuss the limitations of applying the biological definition of disease status as a tool to define the increased likelihood of the onset of the Alzheimer's clinical syndrome and the effects that this may have on trial study design. We also suggest potential research objectives going forward and what the related data requirements would be.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".