Systematic evaluation of urinary formic acid as a new potential biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The accumulation of endogenous formaldehyde is considered a pathogenic factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between urinary formic acid and plasma biomarkers in AD. Materials and methods: Five hundred and seventy-four participants were divided into five groups according to their diagnosis: 71 with normal cognitive (NC), 101 with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), 131 with cognitive impairment without mild cognitive impairment (CINM), 158 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 113 with AD. Results: With the progression of the disease, urinary formic acid levels showed an overall upward trend. Urinary formic acid was significantly correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) scores, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B) time. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of urinary formic acid in distinguishing NC from AD was 0.797, which was similar to that of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL; AUC = 0.768) and better than other plasma biomarkers (Aβ40, Aβ42, Aβ42/Aβ40, T-tau, P-tau181, and P-tau181/T-tau). We also found that using urinary formic acid and formaldehyde levels could improve the accuracy of using plasma biomarkers to determine AD disease stage. Discussion: Our study revealed the possibility of urinary formic acid as a potential novel biomarker for the early 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".