MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312087713 · doi:10.1002/alz.064762

Reference Intervals for Plasma Biomarkers of Alzheimer’s Disease

2022· article· en· W4312087713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer G Cooper, Sophie Stukas, Mohammad Ghodsi, Nyra Ahmed, Daniel T. Holmes, Cheryl L. Wellington

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClusterin in disease pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurodegenerationBiomarkerBiobankInternal medicineAmyloid betaPopulationPathologyOncologyAlzheimer's diseaseNeuroinflammationNeurologyDiseaseBioinformaticsBiologyPsychiatryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Several blood‐based biomarkers are emerging as potential screening, diagnostic, and prognostic tools for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), including: the ratio of amyloid beta 42 over 40 (Aβ42/40), reflecting the pathology of amyloid plaques; phosphorylated tau‐181 (p‐tau‐181), reflecting the formation of neurofibrillary tangles; neurofilament light (NF‐L), reflecting axonal damage observed in neurodegeneration; and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), reflecting neuroinflammation through astrocyte activation. A critical step in the translation of these biomarkers from research to clinical implementation is establishment of reference intervals derived from an appropriate population. Methods 900 plasma samples from male and female participants aged 3‐79 years old were analyzed for Aβ42/40, p‐tau‐181, NF‐L and GFAP to create reference intervals (RI). Samples are obtained from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), a national study that collects demographics, health questionnaires, clinical data and biospecimens from participants. Analysis was preformed on the Quanterix Simoa HD‐X analyzer using the Neurology 4‐plex E and p‐tau‐181 assay. Discrete and continuous RIs were produced for each biomarker. Discrete RIs are produced according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (EP20‐A3c). Continuous RIs are created using quantile regression. Results Participant samples were selected from the following age bins designated by the CHMS biobank: 3 to 5 years (N=56), 6 to 11 years (N=58), 12 to 19 years (N=58), 20 to 39 years (102), 40 to 59 years (N= 102), 60 to 79 years (N=140). After analysis, age partitions for discrete RI were created, resulting in two to five age‐bins per biomarker which reference intervals were generated for. Continuous RIs produced smooth centile curves across all ages, from which point estimates for any age can be calculated. Conclusions Both discrete and continuous RIs for plasma Aβ42/40, p‐tau‐181, NF‐L and GFAP may help refine normative cut offs for each biomarker across the lifespan.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicClusterin in disease pathologyFrench-language works237,207