MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380894012 · doi:10.1002/alz.063141

Autopsy‐confirmed minimally invasive biomarker identifies Alzheimer’s Disease even in the presence of co‐morbid pathologies

2023· article· en· W4380894012 on OpenAlexaff
Florin V. Chirila, Guang Xu, Daniel Fontaine, William MacTurk, Tapan K. Khan, Daniel L. Alkon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerDementiaAutopsyPathologyMedicineAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There are currently no FDA‐approved tests that are highly sensitive and highly specific for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Diagnostic Accuracy has been even more difficult due to recent findings that >50% of AD brains show co‐morbid pathologies such as multi‐infarct dementia and Frontal Lobe Dementia. Here, we describe an autopsy‐confirmed AD Biomarker that identifies AD pathology even with co‐morbid brain pathology. Method A Morphometric Imaging (MI) assay was previously shown to correlate the dementia and presence of AD pathology in the brains of AD patients (Chirila et al., 2013) with abnormalities of skin fibroblasts isolated with routine punch biopsies (∼3mm). Cells were cultured on a thick layer of 3‐D Matrigel matrix and subjected to image analysis. AD cell lines formed large aggregates in contrast to non‐AD dementia (non‐ADD) or non‐demented control (NDC) cell samples. Typically skin fibroblasts formed “networks” analogous to networks formed by neurons isolated in cell culture and AD networks were slower and less connected Quantitative image analyses enabled the calculation of average unit aggregate area (A) in terms of ln(A/N). Samples were collected with a double‐blind protocol for demented patients > 55 years old who eventually reached blinded autopsy examination. NDC samples were collected for Biomarker assay only. Result The total fibroblast patient sample (N = 74) consisted of AD (N = 26) patients and non‐ADD (N = 21) patients (all were autopsy confirmed and had blinded biomarker data); and NDC, N = 27 that had biomarker data. The cut‐off value of ln(A/N) = 6.98 was determined from the biomarker values for NDC patient samples. For the Biomarker AD vs. Non‐ADD data, True Positive = 26, False Negative = 0, False Positive = 0, with Sensitivity and Specificity calculated as 100 and 100, respectively. (AD vs. Non‐ADD, p < .000001). The NDC MI assay values closely superimposed with the non‐ADD sample values. Conclusion In these autopsy‐confirmed results, the MI Biomarker distinguished AD from Non‐ADD patients and correctly diagnosed AD even in the presence of other co‐morbid pathologies at autopsy. This highly, accurate, minimally invasive AD biomarker, therefore, was validated by rigorous reference to the NIH gold standard criteria for an AD Diagnosis, dementia in life and the presence of plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau at autopsy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→