Association Between Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers and Age-related Brain Changes in Patients with Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study aimed to: 1)investigate the diagnostic utility of CSF Aβ42, t-tau, and p-tau to differentiate normal-pressure-hydrocephalus(NPH) from Alzheimer's-disease(AD) and normal-controls; and 2)investigate if age and ventricular size affect the levels of CSF biomarkers in NPH patients. We recruited 131 participants: (a)Suspected-NPH: 72 with ventriculomegaly and clinical symptoms of NPH. These participants were then divided into two groups of 1)Probable-NPH (N = 38) and 2)Unlikely-NPH (N = 34) based on whether participants experienced gait improvement after removal of a large amount of CSF; (b)AD group: 30 participants with CSF biomarkers and cognitive symptoms consistent with AD; (c)Control-group: 29 participants who were cognitively and functionally normal. Lower levels of CSF Aβ42 and p-tau were observed in the probable-NPH compared to the normal controls(444.22 ± 163.3 vs. 1213.75 ± 556.5; and 26.05 ± 9.2 vs. 46.16 ± 13.3 pg/mL; respectively). Lower levels of CSF p-tau and t-tau were found in the probable-NPH compared to the AD(26.05 ± 9.2 vs. 114.95 ± 28.2; and 193.29 ± 92.3 vs. 822.65 ± 311.5 pg/mL; respectively) but the CSF-Aβ42 was low in both the probable-NPH and AD. CSF-Aβ42 correlated with age and Evans-index only in the probable-NPH(r = 0.460, p = 0.004; and r = -0.530, p = 0.001; respectively). Our study supports the hypothesis that age-related atrophy results in better Aβ42 clearance in the CSF because of the increase in the interstitial space.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".