Clinical reporting following the quantification of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease: An international overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current practice of quantifying cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers as an aid in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) varies from center to center. For a same biochemical profile, interpretation and reporting of results may differ, which can lead to misunderstandings and raises questions about the commutability of tests. METHODS: We obtained a description of (pre-)analytical protocols and sample reports from 40 centers worldwide. A consensus approach allowed us to propose harmonized comments corresponding to the different CSF biomarker profiles observed in patients. RESULTS: The (pre-)analytical procedures were similar between centers. There was considerable heterogeneity in cutoff definitions and report comments. We therefore identified and selected by consensus the most accurate and informative comments regarding the interpretation of CSF biomarkers in the context of AD diagnosis. DISCUSSION: This is the first time that harmonized reports are proposed across worldwide specialized laboratories involved in the biochemical diagnosis of AD.
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 | 0.182 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".