Biomarkers and phenotypic expression in Alzheimer’s disease: exploring the contribution of frailty in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Aβ1-42, 181P-tau, and T-tau; MRI-based hippocampus volume; cortical glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging; amyloid deposition at the 18F-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 Aβ1-42, hippocampus volumes at the MRI, and glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging, and a higher amyloid deposition at the 18F-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 18F-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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".