MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225550769 · doi:10.1093/brain/awac158

Biomarker A+T−: is this Alzheimer’s disease or not? A combined CSF and pathology study

2022· article· en· W4225550769 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eleonora M. Vromen, Sterre C.M. de Boer, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Annemieke J.M. Rozemüller, Anne Sieben, Maria Bjerke, Pieter Jelle Visser, Femke H. Bouwman, Sebastiaan Engelborghs, Betty M. Tijms

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenentechNational Institutes of HealthStichting DioraphteInstituut Born-BungeIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SMeso Scale DiagnosticsBentham-Moxon TrustServierBioClinicaBiogenPfizerAlzheimer NederlandZonMwAmsterdam NeuroscienceAlzheimer's AssociationUniversiteit AntwerpenEisaiAmsterdam University Medical CentersNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsAutopsyAlzheimer's diseasePathologyMedicineDementiaBiomarkerCause of deathCohortConcordanceDiseaseInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biological definition of Alzheimer's disease using CSF biomarkers requires abnormal levels of both amyloid (A) and tau (T). However, biomarkers and corresponding cutoffs may not always reflect the presence or absence of pathology. Previous studies suggest that up to 32% of individuals with autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer's disease show normal CSF p-tau levels in vivo, but these studies are sparse and had small sample sizes. Therefore, in three independent autopsy cohorts, we studied whether or not CSF A+T- excluded Alzheimer's disease based on autopsy. We included 215 individuals, for whom ante-mortem CSF collection and autopsy had been performed, from three cohorts: (i) the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (ADC) [n = 80, 37 (46%) Alzheimer's disease at autopsy, time between CSF collection and death 4.5 ± 2.9 years]; (ii) the Antwerp Dementia Cohort (DEM) [n = 92, 84 (91%) Alzheimer's disease at autopsy, time CSF collection to death 1.7 ± 2.3 years]; and (iii) the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) [n = 43, 31 (72%) Alzheimer's disease at autopsy, time CSF collection to death 5.1 ± 2.5 years]. Biomarker profiles were based on dichotomized CSF Aβ1-42 and p-tau levels. The accuracy of CSF AT profiles to detect autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer's disease was assessed. Lastly, we investigated whether the concordance of AT profiles with autopsy diagnosis improved when CSF was collected closer to death in 9 (10%) DEM and 30 (70%) ADNI individuals with repeated CSF measurements available. In total, 50-73% of A+T- individuals and 100% of A+T+ individuals had Alzheimer's disease at autopsy. Amyloid status showed the highest accuracy to detect autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer's disease (accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in the ADC: 88%, 92% and 84%; in the DEM: 87%, 94% and 12%; and in the ADNI cohort: 86%, 90% and 75%, respectively). The addition of CSF p-tau did not further improve these estimates. We observed no differences in demographics or degree of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology between A+T- and A+T+ individuals with autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer's disease. All individuals with repeated CSF measurements remained stable in Aβ1-42 status during follow-up. None of the Alzheimer's disease individuals with a normal p-tau status changed to abnormal; however, four (44%) DEM individuals and two (7%) ADNI individuals changed from abnormal to normal p-tau status over time, and all had Alzheimer's disease at autopsy. In summary, we found that up to 73% of A+T- individuals had Alzheimer's disease at autopsy. This should be taken into account in both research and clinical settings.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207