A blood-based biomarker workflow for optimal tau-PET referral in memory clinic settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood-based biomarkers for screening may guide tau positrion emissition tomography (PET) scan referrals to optimize prognostic evaluation in Alzheimer's disease. Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, pTau181, pTau217, pTau231, NfL, and GFAP were measured along with tau-PET in memory clinic patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment or dementia, in the Swedish BioFINDER-2 study (n = 548) and in the TRIAD study (n = 179). For each plasma biomarker, cutoffs were determined for 90%, 95%, or 97.5% sensitivity to detect tau-PET-positivity. We calculated the percentage of patients below the cutoffs (who would not undergo tau-PET; "saved scans") and the tau-PET-positivity rate among participants above the cutoffs (who would undergo tau-PET; "positive predictive value"). Generally, plasma pTau217 performed best. At the 95% sensitivity cutoff in both cohorts, pTau217 resulted in avoiding nearly half tau-PET scans, with a tau-PET-positivity rate among those who would be referred for a scan around 70%. And although tau-PET was strongly associated with subsequent cognitive decline, in BioFINDER-2 it predicted cognitive decline only among individuals above the referral cutoff on plasma pTau217, supporting that this workflow could reduce prognostically uninformative tau-PET scans. In conclusion, plasma pTau217 may guide selection of patients for tau-PET, when accurate prognostic information is of clinical value.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".