Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein is raised in progranulin-associated frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are few validated fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a measure of astrogliosis, a known pathological process of FTD, but has yet to be explored as potential biomarker. Methods Plasma GFAP and neurofilament light chain (NfL) concentration were measured in 469 individuals enrolled in the Genetic FTD Initiative: 114 C9orf72 expansion carriers (74 presymptomatic, 40 symptomatic), 119 GRN mutation carriers (88 presymptomatic, 31 symptomatic), 53 MAPT mutation carriers (34 presymptomatic, 19 symptomatic) and 183 non-carrier controls. Biomarker measures were compared between groups using linear regression models adjusted for age and sex with family membership included as random effect. Participants underwent standardised clinical assessments including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale and MRI. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship of plasma GFAP to clinical and imaging measures. Results Plasma GFAP concentration was significantly increased in symptomatic GRN mutation carriers (adjusted mean difference from controls 192.3 pg/mL, 95% CI 126.5 to 445.6), but not in those with C9orf72 expansions (9.0, –61.3 to 54.6), MAPT mutations (12.7, –33.3 to 90.4) or the presymptomatic groups. GFAP concentration was significantly positively correlated with age in both controls and the majority of the disease groups, as well as with NfL concentration. In the presymptomatic period, higher GFAP concentrations were correlated with a lower cognitive score (MMSE) and lower brain volume, while in the symptomatic period, higher concentrations were associated with faster rates of atrophy in the temporal lobe. Conclusions Raised GFAP concentrations appear to be unique to GRN -related FTD, with levels potentially increasing just prior to symptom onset, suggesting that GFAP may be an important marker of proximity to onset, and helpful for forthcoming therapeutic prevention trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".