Serum NfL in Alzheimer Dementia: Results of the Prospective Dementia Registry Austria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a biomarker for neuro-axonal injury in various acute and chronic neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We here investigated the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between baseline serum NfL (sNfL) levels and cognitive, behavioural as well as MR volumetric findings in the Prospective Dementia Registry Austria (PRODEM-Austria). Materials and Methods: All participants were clinically diagnosed with AD according to NINCDS-ADRDA criteria and underwent a detailed clinical assessment, cognitive testing (including the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD)), the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI) and laboratory evaluation. A total of 237 patients were included in the study. Follow-up examinations were done at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years with 93.3% of patients undergoing at least one follow-up. We quantified sNfL by a single molecule array (Simoa). In a subgroup of 125 subjects, brain imaging data (1.5 or 3T MRI, with 1 mm isotropic resolution) were available. Brain volumetry was assessed using the FreeSurfer image analysis suite (v6.0). Results: Higher sNfL concentrations were associated with worse performance in cognitive tests at baseline, including CERAD (B = −10.084, SE = 2.999, p < 0.001) and MMSE (B = −3.014, SE = 1.293, p = 0.021). The sNfL levels also correlated with the presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI total score: r = 0.138, p = 0.041) and with smaller volumes of the temporal lobe (B = −0.012, SE = 0.003, p = 0.001), the hippocampus (B = −0.001, SE = 0.000201, p = 0.013), the entorhinal (B = −0.000308, SE = 0.000124, p = 0.014), and the parahippocampal cortex (B = −0.000316, SE = 0.000113, p = 0.006). The sNfL values predicted more pronounced cognitive decline over the mean follow-up period of 22 months, but there were no significant associations with respect to change in neuropsychiatric symptoms and brain volumetric measures. Conclusions: the sNfL levels relate to cognitive, behavioural, and imaging hallmarks of AD and predicts short term cognitive decline.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".