A panel of CSF proteins separates genetic frontotemporal dementia from presymptomatic mutation carriers: a GENFI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A detailed understanding of the pathological processes involved in genetic frontotemporal dementia is critical in order to provide the patients with an optimal future treatment. Protein levels in CSF have the potential to reflect different pathophysiological processes in the brain. We aimed to identify and evaluate panels of CSF proteins with potential to separate symptomatic individuals from individuals without clinical symptoms (unaffected), as well as presymptomatic individuals from mutation non-carriers. METHODS: A multiplexed antibody-based suspension bead array was used to analyse levels of 111 proteins in CSF samples from 221 individuals from families with genetic frontotemporal dementia. The data was explored using LASSO and Random forest. RESULTS: When comparing affected individuals with unaffected individuals, 14 proteins were identified as potentially important for the separation. Among these, four were identified as most important, namely neurofilament medium polypeptide (NEFM), neuronal pentraxin 2 (NPTX2), neurosecretory protein VGF (VGF) and aquaporin 4 (AQP4). The combined profile of these four proteins successfully separated the two groups, with higher levels of NEFM and AQP4 and lower levels of NPTX2 in affected compared to unaffected individuals. VGF contributed to the models, but the levels were not significantly lower in affected individuals. Next, when comparing presymptomatic GRN and C9orf72 mutation carriers in proximity to symptom onset with mutation non-carriers, six proteins were identified with a potential to contribute to a separation, including progranulin (GRN). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we have identified several proteins with the combined potential to separate affected individuals from unaffected individuals, as well as proteins with potential to contribute to the separation between presymptomatic individuals and mutation non-carriers. Further studies are needed to continue the investigation of these proteins and their potential association to the pathophysiological mechanisms in genetic FTD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".