Optimal Combinations of AT(N) Biomarkers to Determine Longitudinal Cognition in the Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: National Institute on Aging—Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) proposed the AT(N) system based on β-amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration, which considered the definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD) as a biological construct. However, the associations between different AT(N) combinations and cognitive progression have been poorly explored systematically. The aim of this study is to compare different AT(N) combinations using recognized biomarkers within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort. Methods: A total of 341 participants were classified into cognitively unimpaired (CU; n = 200) and cognitively impaired (CI; n = 141) groups according to the clinical manifestations and neuropsychological tests. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42 and amyloid-PET ([18F]flutemetamol) were used as biomarkers for A; CSF phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and tau-PET ([18F]flortaucipir) were used as biomarkers for T; CSF total tau (t-tau), hippocampal volume, temporal cortical thickness, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET, and plasma neurofilament light (NfL) were used as biomarkers for (N). Binary biomarkers were obtained from the Youden index and publicly available cutoffs. Prevalence of AT(N) categories was compared between different biomarkers within the group using related independent sample non-parametric test. The relationship between AT(N) combinations and 12-year longitudinal cognition was assessed using linear mixed-effects modeling. Results: Among the CU participants, A–T–(N)– was most common. More T+ were detected using p-tau than tau PET (p < 0.05), and more (N)+ were observed using fluid biomarkers (p < 0.001). A+T+(N)+ was more common in the CI group. Tau PET combined with cortical thickness best predicted cognitive changes in the CI group and MRI predicted changes in the CU group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that optimal AT(N) combinations to determine longitudinal cognition differ by cognitive status. Different biomarkers within a specific component for defining AT(N) cannot be used identically. Furthermore, different strategies for discontinuous biomarkers will be an important area for future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".