Discordant Alzheimer's neurodegenerative biomarkers and their clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, and brain atrophy. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of having discordant Alzheimer's neurodegenerative biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 721 non-demented individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database were included and then further categorized into concordant-negative, discordant, and concordant-positive groups. Demographic distributions of the groups were compared. Longitudinal changes in clinical outcomes and risk of conversion were assessed using linear mixed-effects models and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, respectively. RESULTS: Discordant group was intermediate to concordant-negative and concordant-positive groups in terms of APOE ε4 positivity, CSF amyloid-beta, and phosphorylated tau. Compared with concordant-negative group, discordant group deteriorated faster in cognitive scores (Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes, and the Functional Activities Questionnaire) and demonstrated greater rates of atrophy in brain structures (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and whole brain), and concordant-positive group performed worse over time than discordant group. Moreover, the risk of cognitive decline increased from concordant-negative to discordant to concordant-positive. The results from longitudinal analyses were validated in A+T+, cognitively normal, and mild cognitive impairment individuals, and were also validated by applying different cutoffs and neurodegenerative biomarkers. INTERPRETATION: Discordant neurodegenerative status denotes a stage of cognitive function which is intermediate between concordant-negative and concordant-positive. Identification of discordant cases would provide insights into intervention and new therapy approaches, particularly in A+T+ individuals. Moreover, this work may be a complement to the ATN scheme.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".