MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106380749 · doi:10.1007/s11357-020-00293-y

Biomarkers and phenotypic expression in Alzheimer’s disease: exploring the contribution of frailty in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

2020· article· en· W3106380749 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeroScience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationRegione LazioEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaEuropean Regional Development FundEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsDementiaNeuroimagingNeuropathologyAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMedicineHippocampusDiseaseAlzheimer's diseasePittsburgh compound BInternal medicineCognitive declineBiomarkerNeuropsychologyCognitionPathologicalOncologyClinical Dementia RatingPsychologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study aimed at investigating if the main biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) neuropathology and their association with cognitive disturbances and dementia are modified by the individual’s frailty status. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from participants with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD dementia enrolled in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (ADNI2) study. Frailty was operationalized by computing a 40-item Frailty Index (FI). The following AD biomarkers were considered and analyzed according to the participants’ frailty status: CSF Aβ 1-42 , 181 P-tau, and T-tau; MRI-based hippocampus volume; cortical glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging; amyloid deposition at the 18 F-AV-45 PET imaging. Logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and education, were performed to explore the association of biomarkers with cognitive status at different FI levels. Subjects with higher FI scores had lower CSF levels of Aβ 1-42 , hippocampus volumes at the MRI, and glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging, and a higher amyloid deposition at the 18 F-AV-45 PET. No significant differences were observed among the two frailty groups concerning ApoE genotype, CSF T-tau, and P-tau. Increasing frailty levels were associated with a weakened relationship between dementia and 18 F-AV-45 uptake and hippocampus volume and with a stronger relationship of dementia with FDG PET. Frailty contributes to the discrepancies between AD pathology and clinical manifestations and influences the association of AD pathological modifications with cognitive changes. AD and dementia should increasingly be conceived as “complex diseases of aging,” determined by multiple, simultaneous, and interacting pathophysiological processes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it