MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312087809 · doi:10.1002/alz.064314

Applying Data‐Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry on Cerebrospinal Fluid Samples from a Neurology Clinic for Biomarker Discovery in Alzheimer’s Disease

2022· article· en· W4312087809 on OpenAlexaff
Matthijs B. de Geus, Shannon Leslie, Christopher E. Ramirez, Bianca A. Trombetta, Weiwei Wang, TuKiet T. Lam, Clarisse Gotti, Florence Roux‐Dalvai, Arnaud Droit, Angus C. Nairn, Steven E. Arnold, Becky C. Carlyle

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCohortBiomarkerMedicineNeurologyMedical diagnosisInternal medicineLumbar punctureAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseOncologyCerebrospinal fluidBioinformaticsPathologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) primarily relies on cognitive assessments combined with imaging and limited fluid biomarkers. These biomarkers do not correlate with cognitive prognosis. Analysis of larger sets of biomarkers could improve diagnosis and prognosis of AD and differentiate between comorbid pathophysiologies, and measure treatment efficacy. Here, we report analysis of a Data‐independent Acquisition (DIA) mass‐spectrometry method used to simultaneously quantify hundreds of proteins in a large‐scale patient cohort. We aim to define markers that are able to stratify and diagnose AD in this clinically complex cohort. Method Samples from 408 patients spanning various dementia diagnoses were collected from the Massachusetts General Hospital Lumbar Puncture clinic. The patient cohort consisted of ATN‐verified cognitively‐unimpaired (n = 81), mild‐cognitive impairment from AD (n = 116), mild‐cognitive impairment from other causes (n = 78), dementia from AD (n = 65) and dementia from other causes (n = 31). Samples were analyzed on an Orbitrap Fusion using a DIA method and raw files were searched using Scaffold‐DIA. Result Analyses of the method’s technical performance showed a median intrabatch CV of 24.7% which decreased to 17.5% after filtering for peptides expressed in 95% of all samples. The mean interbatch CV was 73.7% which reduced to 28.8% after ComBat batch‐correction. After filtering for missing values and selecting only the peptides with a mean intrabatch CV below 25%, our dataset consists of 1761 unique peptide sequences belonging to 516 proteins. To determine the differential abundance of peptides we fit a linear regression model to the data. 572 peptides were found to be differentially abundant across all diagnoses compared to AD (padj < 0.05). 11 of these peptides belonging to 5 proteins (PKM, ALDOA, GUAD, BASP1 and CH3L1) were differentially abundant between AD and all non‐AD diagnoses, suggesting specificity for AD. PKM and ALDOA, are involved in regulation of balance between glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation, potentially indicating a shift in brain metabolism in AD. Conclusion Technically robust unbiased mass‐spectrometry can highlight novel AD specific biomarkers which may reflect pathophysiological processes key to AD progression.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207