Comparing Symmetric Dimethylarginine and Amyloid-β42 as Predictors of Alzheimer’s Disease Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physicians may soon be able to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in its early stages using fluid biomarkers like amyloid. However, it is acknowledged that additional biomarkers need to be characterized which would facilitate earlier monitoring of AD pathogenesis. Objective: To determine if a potential novel inflammation biomarker for AD, symmetric dimethylarginine, has utility as a baseline serum biomarker for discriminating prodromal AD from cognitively unimpaired controls in comparison to cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β42 (Aβ 42 ). Methods: Data including demographics, magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, Mini-Mental State Examination and Functional Activities Questionnaire scores, and biomarker concentrations were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative for a total of 146 prodromal AD participants and 108 cognitively unimpaired controls. Results: Aβ 42 ( p = 0.65) and symmetric dimethylarginine ( p = 0.45) were unable to predict age-matched cognitively unimpaired controls and prodromal AD participants. Aβ 42 was negatively associated with regional brain atrophy and hypometabolism as well as cognitive and functional decline in cognitively unimpaired control participants ( p < 0.05) that generally decreased in time. There were no significant associations between Aβ 42 and symmetric dimethylarginine with imaging or neurocognitive biomarkers in prodromal AD patients. Conclusions: Correlations were smaller between Aβ 42 and neuropathological biomarkers over time and were absent in prodromal AD participants, suggesting a plateau effect dependent on age and disease stage. Evidence supporting symmetric dimethylarginine as a novel biomarker for AD as a single measurement was not found.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".