MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390195342 · doi:10.1002/alz.079892

Plasma ALZpath p‐tau217 for the identification of amyloid and tau positivity

2023· article· en· W4390195342 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas J. Ashton, Guglielmo Di Molfetta, Wagner S. Brum, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Burak Arslan, Erin M. Jonaitis, Rebecca E. Langhough, Karly Alex Cody, Tobey J. Betthauser, Kirk J. Hogan, Bradley T. Christian, Nesrine Rahmouni, Jenna Stevenson, Laia Montoliu‐Gaya, Juan Lantero‐Rodriguez, Gallen Triana‐Baltzer, Hartmuth C. Kolb, Jeroen Vanbrabant, Erik Stoops, Andreas Jeromin, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Sterling C. Johnson, Kaj Blennow, Henrik Zetterberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDementiaOncologyDiseaseGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the last 5 years, immunoassays for the quantification of phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) in blood have proven to accurately identify Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology with important implications for primary care management and therapeutic trials. Comparisons of p‐tau epitopes (p‐tau181, p‐tau217, p‐tau231) show small differences in diagnostic accuracy, however, often p‐tau217 is preferred, citing its larger fold‐change in symptomatic patients and lower rate of false positives in amyloid‐negative individuals. This study describes the performance of a novel Single molecule array (Simoa) for p‐tau217 (p‐tau217ALZpath) Method We included 355 participants from Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) participants, which was representative of the AD continuum. Further, 425 cognitively unimpaired individuals, with longitudinal plasma measures (≤8 years), were included from Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (WRAP). All plasma samples were measured for ALZpath p‐tau217ALZpath, a validated Simoa assay at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. In TRIAD, amyloid positivity (A+) was defined as [18F]AZD‐4694 SUVR >1.5 or CSF Aβ42/40 <0.068. In WRAP, A+ was defined by [11C]PiB >1.16. 18F‐MK‐6240 determined tau status (T+) both cohorts (TRIAD, >1.24 SUVR; WRAP, >1.3). Result In TRIAD, p‐tau217ALZpath determined A+ (AUC = 0.957, 0.935‐978) and T+ (AUC = 0.952, 0.929–0.976) individuals with high accuracy. A sensitivity analysis, including only participants with imaging (amyloid and tau) and CSF biomarkers (p‐tau181, p‐tau205, p‐tau217, Aβ42/40), p‐tau217ALZpath demonstrated equivalent accuracies in determining A+ (Figure 1A) and T+ (Figure 1B) than these high‐performing modalities. In addition, plasma p‐tau217AlzPATH demonstrated a good accuracy to identify T+ from all A+ participants (AUC = 0.839, 0.767‐910). Concentration cut‐points derived in WRAP to identify A+ (>0.676 pg/mL; PPV = 87.2%) and A– (<0.235 pg/mL; NPV = 98.2%) were directly tested in TRIAD with high accuracy (>0.676 pg/mL, PPV = 98.8%; <0.235 pg/mL, NPV = 95.1%. In WRAP, longitudinal analysis (Figure 2) demonstrated that over 8‐years, p‐tau217AlzPATH increased only in A+ individuals and more steeply in A+T+ participants (βestimate = 0.1 pg/mL per year; P<0.0001) compared to A+T‐ (βestimate = 0.022 pg/mL per year, P = 0.0008). Conclusion The novel p‐tau217ALZpath immunoassay demonstrates high accuracy to determine amyloid and tau pathology across all stages of AD continuum. Clinical cut‐points to identify A+ or A– with high PPV and NPV are directly transferable across cohorts.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→