MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390195177 · doi:10.1002/alz.079341

Discovery‐based proteomics identifies plasma proteins that predict longitudinal cognitive decline in older adults over a 7‐year follow‐up period

2023· article· en· W4390195177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hailey A. Kresge, Khiry L Patterson, Julia B. Libby, W Hudson Robb, Albert B. Arul, Min Ji Choi, Nekesa C. Oliver, Marsalas D Whitaker, Elizabeth E. Moore, Michelle L Houston, Kimberly R. Pechman, Logan Dumitrescu, Katherine A. Gifford, Timothy J. Hohman, Renã A. S. Robinson, Angela L. Jefferson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyCognitive declineDementiaCognitionLongitudinal studyPsychologyNeuropsychological assessmentEpisodic memoryVerbal memoryAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicineInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recent technological advances have enabled large‐scale proteomic profiling of plasma and especially in studies of Alzheimer’s disease. However, studies that have comprehensively examined longitudinal cognitive decline as an outcome from plasma protein levels prior to the onset of clinical dementia are limited. This project aimed to identify plasma proteins predictive of cognitive decline across a robust neuropsychological protocol over a 7‐year follow‐up period. Methods Vanderbilt Memory and Aging Project participants (n = 333, 73±7 years, 41% female) free of clinical dementia at study entry underwent fasting blood draw and comprehensive serial neuropsychological assessment over a 7‐year period (mean follow‐up = 5.8 years). Plasma samples were subjected to multiplex liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry analysis to quantify cross‐sectional protein abundances for each participant at study entry. Normalization of proteomic data adjusted for batch effects, high levels of missingness, and log2 transformation. Linear mixed‐effects regressions related protein levels to longitudinal neuropsychological outcomes, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, baseline cognitive status, apolipoprotein E ε4 status, and follow‐up time. False discovery rate correction was applied to the a priori significance threshold. Results Initial proteomics analyses yielded 3,784 proteins, of which 686 were used as analytical predictors following quality control, post‐acquisition filtering, and data normalization. Regression analyses resulted in 86 proteins which predicted longitudinal decline in global cognition, as assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. In analyses with individual neuropsychological domains as outcomes, 144 proteins predicted longitudinal decline in at least one neuropsychological domain [episodic memory (40 proteins), language (72 proteins), information processing speed (99 proteins), executive function (22 proteins), visuospatial skills (55 proteins)]. There was a smaller number of proteins (i.e., five) that were predictive of longitudinal cognitive decline across all domains. Conclusion We conducted large‐scale proteomics analyses and identified 144 plasma proteins at study entry among a cohort of older adults free of clinical dementia that predict subsequent decline in cognition over a 7‐year follow‐up period. Five of these proteins were predictive of decline across all domains suggesting these proteins may represent biological pathways that adversely affect brain health with increasing age. Replication is needed to validate identified proteins as potential biomarkers of cognitive decline.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→