MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389173338 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3666285/v1

Novel Plasma Protein Biomarkers: A Time-Dependent predictive model for Alzheimer's Disease

2023· preprint· en· W4389173338 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tianchi Zhuang, Yingqi Yang, Haili Ren, Chang Gao, Jiemiao Shen, Minghui Ji, Yan Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of California, Los AngelesServierNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNanjing Medical UniversityEisaiGenentechIXICONational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of California, San DiegoBioClinicaNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyMedpaceBiogenSynarcMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicProportional hazards modelCohortInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)OncologyDiseaseBiomarkerMedicineLasso (programming language)Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeAlzheimer's diseasePsychologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The accurate prediction of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial for the efficient management of its progression. The objective of this research is to construct a new risk predictive model utilizing novel plasma protein biomarkers for predicting AD incidence in the future and analyze their potential biological correlation with AD incidence. Methods A cohort of 440 participants aged 60 years and older from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) longitudinal cohort was utilized. The baseline plasma proteomics data was employed to conduct Cox regression, LASSO regression, and cross-validation to identify plasma protein signatures predictive of AD risk. Subsequently, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model based on these signatures was constructed. The performance of the risk prediction model was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (t-ROC) curves and Kaplan-Meier curves. Additionally, we analyzed the correlations between protein signature expression in plasma and predicted AD risk, the time of AD onset, the expression of protein signatures in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the expression of CSF biomarkers, and APOE ε4 genotypes. Results We identified seven protein signatures (APOE, CGA, CRP, CCL26, CCL20, NRCAM, and PYY) that independently predicted AD incidence in the future. The risk prediction model demonstrated area under the ROC curve (AUC) values of 0.77, 0.76, and 0.77 for predicting AD incidence at 4, 6, and 8 years, respectively. Furthermore, the model remained stable in the range of the 3rd to the 12th year (ROC ≥ 0.75). The low-risk group, as defined by the model, exhibited a significantly later AD onset compared to the high-risk group (P < 0.0001). Moreover, all protein signatures exhibited significant correlations with AD risk (P < 0.001) and the time of AD onset (P < 0.01). There was no strong correlation between the protein expression levels in plasma and CSF, as well as AD CSF biomarkers. APOE, CGA, and CRP exhibited significantly lower expression levels in APOE ε4 positive individuals (P < 0.05). Conclusion Our research has successfully identified protein signatures in plasma as potential risk biomarkers that can independently predict AD incidence in the future. Notably, this risk prediction model has demonstrated commendable predictive performance and stability over time. These findings underscore the promising utility of plasma protein signatures in dynamically predicting the risk of Alzheimer's disease, thereby facilitating early screening and intervention strategies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueResearch Square→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→