Positive Association Between Cognitive Function and Cerebrospinal Fluid Orexin A Levels in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, many studies have investigated the association between orexin A and Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, it remains to be determined whether the observed changes in orexin A levels are associated with pathological changes underlying AD, or cognitive function. In particular, a direct association between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) orexin A levels and cognitive function has not been reported to date. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify whether there is a direct association between the orexinergic system and cognitive function in AD. METHODS: For this study, we included 22 patients with AD and 25 control subjects who underwent general physical, neurological, and psychiatric examinations, neuroimaging, and CSF collection by lumbar puncture were enrolled. Correlations between CSF orexin A levels and CSF AD biomarker levels (i.e., levels of phosphorylated tau [p-tau], Aβ42, and Aβ42/Aβ40) were assessed to confirm the results of previous studies. Moreover, the correlation between CSF orexin A levels and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) scores were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a significant positive correlation between CSF orexin-A levels and cognitive function (MMSE scores: r = 0.591, p = 0.04, MoCA score: r = 0.571, p = 0.006) in AD patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to our knowledge demonstrating an association between cognitive function and CSF orexin A levels in AD. Our results suggest the possibility that orexinergic system overexpression is not always a negative factor for cognitive function In 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".