Association of novel CSF biomarker candidates with cortical thickness in genetic frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A novel panel of 14 proteins measured in the CSF could separate individuals with genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) from controls, with most significant findings observed for neurofilament medium (NEFM), neuronal pentraxin 2 (NPTX2), neurosecretory protein VGF (VGF) and aquaporin 4 (AQP4) [1]. However, it is currently unknown whether these altered protein levels in the CSF reflect neurodegenerative changes in the brain. The aim of this study was to explore the cross‐sectional associations between the previously identified CSF biomarker candidates and cortical thickness in presymptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers, and whether those associations differ by FTD mutation type. Method We have analyzed T1 MRI scans alongside concurrent CSF samples from 202 individuals from the GENFI cohort, belonging to families that carry FTD mutations in either C9orf72, GRN or MAPT genes. The study sample included symptomatic mutation carriers, presymptomatic mutation carriers and non‐carrier controls. Cortical thickness was estimated with FreeSurfer and CSF protein levels were measured via a multiplexed antibody‐based suspension bead array. The correlations between regional cortical thickness and protein levels were calculated via linear regression. Result Altered levels of NEFM, AQP4, APOA1, PTPRN2, CTSS, SERPINA3, C4, AMPH and CD14 were all correlated with increased atrophy of at least one cortical region. Some effects were mutation specific, but NEFM, AQP4 and APOA1 correlated with atrophy in all mutation groups. We also observed mutation specific effects for 10 of the proteins. CTSS levels were only correlated with cortical atrophy in C9orf72 mutation carriers while NPTX2, VGF and PTPRN2 correlated with atrophy in GRN mutation carriers. In MAPT mutation carriers, 6 different proteins correlated with atrophy in the right temporal pole. Conclusion The proposed fluid biomarker candidates continue to show promise and further longitudinal studies will contribute to elucidate their relationship to cortical atrophy and their prognostic value in genetic FTD. [1] Bergström et al. Mol Neurodegener. 2021; 16(1):79
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".