MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122367423 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(20)30061-1

Serum markers glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light for prognosis and monitoring in cognitively normal older people: a prospective memory clinic-based cohort study

2021· article· en· W3122367423 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Inge M.W. Verberk, Malika B Laarhuis, Karlijn A. van den Bosch, Jarith L. Ebenau, Mardou van Leeuwenstijn, Niels D. Prins, Philip Scheltens, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Wiesje M. van der Flier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeAlzheimer NederlandZonMwEuropean CommissionEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWeston Brain InstituteRoche
KeywordsDementiaProspective cohort studyBiomarkerCohortMedicineGlial fibrillary acidic proteinInternal medicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelProspective memoryOncologyCohort studyDiseasePsychiatryCognitionConfidence intervalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) are putative non-amyloid blood-based biomarkers indicative of ongoing inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease processes. We aimed to assess their prognostic and monitoring value for progression to dementia in individuals presenting at a memory clinic who are cognitively normal. Methods For this prospective cohort study, we included individuals who were cognitively normal from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort and received screening for dementia at first visit and annual follow-up visits. Participants without a serum sample stored in the Amsterdam Dementia Biobank within 6 months of baseline visit and without a follow-up diagnosis after a minimum of 6 months were excluded. We measured serum GFAP and NfL levels at baseline for all participants and at follow-up for a subset of participants. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we investigated associations of biomarker levels (Z-transformed) with incident dementia (adjusted for age and sex), by entering the markers first separately and then simultaneously, to test independent associations. We also assessed longitudinal performance of the markers on a standardised neuropsychological test battery covering global cognition, memory, language, executive functioning, and attention (adjusted for age, sex, and education). Finally, we evaluated the association of slopes of biomarker levels with incident dementia (adjusted for age and sex). Findings Between July 13, 2001, and Aug 17, 2016, 300 individuals were included in the study. Mean baseline age was 61 years (SD 9), 125 (42%) of participants were women, and mini-mental state examination was 29 (IQR 27–29). Median follow-up time was 3·0 years (IQR 1·9–4·2), with a median of three visits per participant (range 2–12; 1010 total neuropsychological evaluations). During follow-up, 27 (9%) of 300 individuals developed dementia. Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2–5·7; p<0·0001) and high baseline NfL (1·8, 1·2–2·8; p=0·0037) were associated with increased risk of dementia. When entering both markers simultaneously in the model, only GFAP remained associated with an increased risk of dementia (3·3, 1·9–5·5; p<0·0001). When additionally entering (inverted) plasma amyloid β 42/40 , both GFAP (2·6, 1·4–5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β 42/40 (2·1, 1·2–3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8–2·5; p=0·28). Linear mixed models showed that higher baseline GFAP levels were associated with a steeper rate of decline in the domains of memory, attention, and executive functioning (p false discovery rate <0·05), whereas higher NfL levels were not. Repeated serum GFAP and NfL analyses revealed that NfL levels rose more steeply over time in individuals with incident dementia compared with those without (p=0·0006), whereas GFAP levels did not (p=0·074). Interpretation Our results suggest that, while serum NfL seems to have potential as monitoring biomarker, GFAP might be a valuable prognostic biomarker, predicting incident dementia. Funding Alzheimer Nederland, Gieskes Strijbis Fonds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations212
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207