Developing blood-brain barrier arterial spin labelling as a non-invasive early biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease (DEBBIE-AD): a prospective observational multicohort study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Loss of blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity is hypothesised to be one of the earliest microvascular signs of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Existing BBB integrity imaging methods involve contrast agents or ionising radiation, and pose limitations in terms of cost and logistics. Arterial spin labelling (ASL) perfusion MRI has been recently adapted to map the BBB permeability non-invasively. The DEveloping BBB-ASL as a non-Invasive Early biomarker (DEBBIE) consortium aims to develop this modified ASL-MRI technique for patient-specific and robust BBB permeability assessments. This article outlines the study design of the DEBBIE cohorts focused on investigating the potential of BBB-ASL as an early biomarker for AD (DEBBIE-AD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DEBBIE-AD consists of a multicohort study enrolling participants with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment and AD, as well as age-matched healthy controls, from 13 cohorts. The precision and accuracy of BBB-ASL will be evaluated in healthy participants. The clinical value of BBB-ASL will be evaluated by comparing results with both established and novel AD biomarkers. The DEBBIE-AD study aims to provide evidence of the ability of BBB-ASL to measure BBB permeability and demonstrate its utility in AD and AD-related pathologies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained for 10 cohorts, and is pending for 3 cohorts. The results of the main trial and each of the secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".