Comparative analytical performance of multiple plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 assays and their ability to predict positron emission tomography amyloid positivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This report details the approach taken to providing a dataset allowing for analyses on the performance of recently developed assays of amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides in plasma and the extent to which they improve the prediction of amyloid positivity. METHODS: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative plasma samples with corresponding amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) data were run on six plasma Aβ assays. Statistical tests were performed to determine whether the plasma Aβ measures significantly improved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting amyloid PET status compared to age and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. RESULTS: The age and APOE genotype model predicted amyloid status with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75. Three assays improved AUCs to 0.81, 0.81, and 0.84 (P < .05, uncorrected for multiple comparisons). DISCUSSION: Measurement of Aβ in plasma contributes to addressing the amyloid component of the ATN (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) framework and could be a first step before or in place of a PET or cerebrospinal fluid screening study. HIGHLIGHTS: The Foundation of the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium evaluated six plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) assays using Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative samples. Three assays improved prediction of amyloid status over age and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. Plasma Aβ42/40 predicted amyloid positron emission tomography status better than Aβ42 or Aβ40 alone.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".