Considerations for Use of Blood-Based Biomarkers in Epidemiologic Dementia Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia represents a growing public health burden with large social, racial, and ethnic disparities. The etiology of dementia is poorly understood, and the lack of robust biomarkers in diverse, population-representative samples is a barrier to moving dementia research forward. Existing biomarkers and other measures of pathology-derived from neuropathology, neuroimaging, and cerebrospinal fluid samples-are commonly collected from predominantly White and highly educated samples drawn from academic medical centers in urban settings. Blood-based biomarkers are noninvasive and less expensive, offering promise to expand our understanding of the pathophysiology of dementia, including in participants from historically excluded groups. Although largely not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration or used in clinical settings, blood-based biomarkers are increasingly included in epidemiologic studies on dementia. Blood-based biomarkers in epidemiologic research may allow the field to more accurately understand the multifactorial etiology and sequence of events that characterize dementia-related pathophysiological changes. As blood-based dementia biomarkers continue to be developed and incorporated into research and practice, we outline considerations for using them in dementia epidemiology, and illustrate key concepts with Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2003-present) data. We focus on measurement, including both validity and reliability, and on the use of dementia blood-based biomarkers to promote equity in dementia research and cognitive aging. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.
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 | 0.652 | 0.720 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".