Association between plasma <scp>CTRPs</scp> with cognitive impairment and neurodegeneration of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Recent evidence indicated the biological basis of complement 1q (C1q)/tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related protein (CTRP) 3, 4, and 14 for affecting brain structure and cognitive function. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association between plasma CTRPs with Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional study recruited patients with AD (n = 137) and cognitively normal (CN) controls (n = 140). After the data collection of demographic characteristics, lifestyle risk factors, and medical history, plasma levels of tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (pT217), pT181, neurofilament light (NfL), CTRP3, 4, and 14 were examined and compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to determine associations of plasma CTPRs with the presence of AD. The correlation analysis was used to explore correlations between plasma CTPRs with scores of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale, and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), and levels of plasma pT217, pT181, and NfL. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Delong's test were used to determine the diagnostic power of plasma CTPRs. RESULTS: Plasma levels of CTRP3, 4, and 14 were higher in AD group than those in CN group. After adjusting for conventional risk factors, CTRP3, CTRP4, and CTRP14 were associated with the presence of AD. In AD patients, CTRP3 was negatively correlated with scores of MMSE and MoCA, while positively correlated with ADL score, CDR-SB score, pT217, and pT181; CTRP4 was positively correlated with CDR-SB score, pT181, and NfL; CTRP14 was negatively correlated with MMSE score, while positively correlated with CDR-SB score, pT217, and NfL. An independent addition of CTRP3 and 4 to the basic model combining age, sex, years of education, APOE4 status, BMI, TG, and HDL-C led to a significant improvement in diagnostic power for AD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All the findings preliminarily uncovered associations between plasma CTRPs and AD and suggested the potential of CTRPs as a blood-derived biomarker for AD.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".