Early Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease-Related Pathology Using a Multi-Disease Diagnostic Platform Employing Autoantibodies as Blood-Based Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the universal presence of IgG autoantibodies in blood and their potential utility for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases has been extensively demonstrated by our laboratory. The fact that AD-related neuropathological changes in the brain can begin more than a decade before tell-tale symptoms emerge has made it difficult to develop diagnostic tests useful for detecting the earliest stages of AD pathogenesis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of a panel of autoantibodies for detecting the presence of AD-related pathology along the early AD continuum, including at pre-symptomatic [an average of 4 years before the transition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI)/AD)], prodromal AD (MCI), and mild-moderate AD stages. METHODS: A total of 328 serum samples from multiple cohorts, including ADNI subjects with confirmed pre-symptomatic, prodromal, and mild-moderate AD, were screened using Luminex xMAP® technology to predict the probability of the presence of AD-related pathology. A panel of eight autoantibodies with age as a covariate was evaluated using randomForest and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Autoantibody biomarkers alone predicted the probability of the presence of AD-related pathology with 81.0% accuracy and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.78-0.91). Inclusion of age as a parameter to the model improved the AUC (0.96; 95% CI = 0.93-0.99) and overall accuracy (93.0%). CONCLUSION: Blood-based autoantibodies can be used as an accurate, non-invasive, inexpensive, and widely accessible diagnostic screener for detecting AD-related pathology at pre-symptomatic and prodromal AD stages that could aid clinicians in diagnosing 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".