MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245770599 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-21398/v1

Discordant Alzheimer's neurodegenerative biomarkers and their clinical outcomes in older adults without dementia

2020· preprint· en· W4245770599 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yu Guo, Hong‐Qi Li, Lin Tan, Shi-Dong Chen, Yu‐Xiang Yang, Ya‐Hui Ma, Chuantao Zuo, Qiang Dong, Lan Tan, Jin‐Tai Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SServierNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEisaiGenentechIXICONorthern California Institute for Research and EducationFudan UniversityNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBiogenBioClinicaEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsDementiaMedicineGerontologyNeurosciencePsychologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In 2018 ATN framework, Alzheimer's neurodegenerative biomarkers comprised cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau, 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, and brain atrophy. Although these biomarkers could be used interchangeably, some cases had discordant neurodegenerative biomarkers. Our aim was to assess the clinical outcomes of having discordant Alzheimer's neurodegenerative biomarkers. Methods: A total of 721 non-demented individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database were included and then further categorized into concordant negative, discordant, and concordant positive groups. Demographic distributions of the groups were compared. Longitudinal changes in clinical outcomes and risk of conversion were assessed using linear mixed-effects models and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, respectively. Results: Discordant group was intermediate to concordant-negative and concordant-positive groups in terms of APOE ε4 positivity, CSF amyloid-beta and phosphorylated tau. Compared with concordant-negative group, discordant group deteriorated faster in cognitive scores (Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes, and the Functional Activities Questionnaire) and demonstrated greater rates of atrophy in brain structures (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex and whole brain), and concordant-positive group performed worse over time than discordant group. Moreover, the risk of cognitive progression increased from concordant-negative to discordant to concordant-positive. The longitudinal results were validated in A+T+, cognitively normal and mild cognitive impairment individuals, and were also validated by applying different cut-offs for neurodegenerative biomarkers. Conclusions: Discordant neurodegenerative status denotes a stage of cognitive function which is intermediate between concordant-negative and concordant-positive. Identification of discordant cases would provide insights into intervention and new therapy approaches, particularly in A+T+ individuals. Moreover, this work may be a complement to the ATN scheme.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.332 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207