MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388851280 · doi:10.1002/alz.13518

Biological variation estimates of Alzheimer's disease plasma biomarkers in healthy individuals

2023· article· en· W4388851280 on OpenAlexaff
Wagner S. Brum, Nicholas J. Ashton, Joel Simrén, Guglielmo Di Molfetta, Thomas K. Karikari, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Eduardo R. Zimmer, Juan Lantero‐Rodriguez, Laia Montoliu‐Gaya, Andreas Jeromin, Aasne K. Aarsand, William A. Bartlett, Pilar Fernández–Calle, Abdurrahman Coşkun, Jorge Díaz–Garzón, Niels Jonker, Henrik Zetterberg, Sverre Sandberg, Anna Carobene, Kaj Blennow

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeNational Institutes of HealthUK Dementia Research InstituteVetenskapsrådetHjärnfondenUniversity College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchEuropean CommissionFamiljen Erling-Perssons StiftelseStiftelsen för Gamla TjänarinnorAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsDiseaseVariation (astronomy)Alzheimer's diseaseMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Blood biomarkers have proven useful in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. However, little is known about their biological variation (BV), which improves the interpretation of individual‐level data. METHODS We measured plasma amyloid beta (Aβ42, Aβ40), phosphorylated tau (p‐tau181, p‐tau217, p‐tau231), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in plasma samples collected weekly over 10 weeks from 20 participants aged 40 to 60 years from the European Biological Variation Study. We estimated within‐ (CV I ) and between‐subject (CV G ) BV, analytical variation, and reference change values (RCV). RESULTS Biomarkers presented considerable variability in CV I and CV G . Aβ42/Aβ40 had the lowest CV I (≈ 3%) and p‐tau181 the highest (≈ 16%), while others ranged from 6% to 10%. Most RCVs ranged from 20% to 30% (decrease) and 25% to 40% (increase). DISCUSSION BV estimates for AD plasma biomarkers can potentially refine their clinical and research interpretation. RCVs might be useful for detecting significant changes between serial measurements when monitoring early disease progression or interventions. Highlights Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ42/Aβ40) presents the lowest between‐ and within‐subject biological variation, but also changes the least in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients versus controls. Plasma phosphorylated tau variants significantly vary in their within‐subject biological variation, but their substantial fold‐changes in AD likely limits the impact of their variability. Plasma neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein demonstrate high between‐subject variation, the impact of which will depend on clinical context. Reference change values can potentially be useful in monitoring early disease progression and the safety/efficacy of interventions on an individual level. Serial sampling revealed that unexpectedly high values in heathy individuals can be observed, which urges caution when interpreting AD plasma biomarkers based on a single test result.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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

Citations76
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207