MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390655824 · doi:10.1186/s13024-023-00689-2

Comparison of immunoassay- with mass spectrometry-derived p-tau quantification for the detection of Alzheimer’s disease pathology

2024· article· en· W4390655824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Neurodegeneration · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWeston Brain InstituteNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsImmunoassayMass spectrometryAlzheimer's diseaseDementiaMedicineCerebrospinal fluidTau proteinChemistryAntibodyPathologyChromatographyDiseaseImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Antibody-based immunoassays have enabled quantification of very low concentrations of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) protein forms in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), aiding in the diagnosis of AD. Mass spectrometry enables absolute quantification of multiple p-tau variants within a single run. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of mass spectrometry assessments of p-tau 181 , p-tau 217 and p-tau 231 with established immunoassay techniques. Methods We measured p-tau 181 , p-tau 217 and p-tau 231 concentrations in CSF from 173 participants from the TRIAD cohort and 394 participants from the BioFINDER-2 cohort using both mass spectrometry and immunoassay methods. All subjects were clinically evaluated by dementia specialists and had amyloid-PET and tau-PET assessments. Bland–Altman analyses evaluated the agreement between immunoassay and mass spectrometry p-tau 181 , p-tau 217 and p-tau 231 . P-tau associations with amyloid-PET and tau-PET uptake were also compared. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses compared the performance of mass spectrometry and immunoassays p-tau concentrations to identify amyloid-PET positivity. Results Mass spectrometry and immunoassays of p-tau 217 were highly comparable in terms of diagnostic performance, between-group effect sizes and associations with PET biomarkers. In contrast, p-tau 181 and p-tau 231 concentrations measured using antibody-free mass spectrometry had lower performance compared with immunoassays. Conclusions Our results suggest that while similar overall, immunoassay-based p-tau biomarkers are slightly superior to antibody-free mass spectrometry-based p-tau biomarkers. Future work is needed to determine whether the potential to evaluate multiple biomarkers within a single run offsets the slightly lower performance of antibody-free mass spectrometry-based p-tau quantification.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.297 · 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