Combining Blood-Based Biomarkers and Structural MRI Measurements to Distinguish Persons with and without Significant Amyloid Plaques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques play a pivotal role in Alzheimer's disease. The current positron emission tomography (PET) is expensive and limited in availability. In contrast, blood-based biomarkers (BBBMs) show potential for characterizing Aβ plaques more affordably. We have previously proposed an MRI-based hippocampal morphometry measure to be an indicator of Aβ plaques. Objective: To develop and validate an integrated model to predict brain amyloid PET positivity combining MRI feature and plasma Aβ42/40 ratio. Methods: We extracted hippocampal multivariate morphometry statistics from MR images and together with plasma Aβ42/40 trained a random forest classifier to perform a binary classification of participant brain amyloid PET positivity. We evaluated the model performance using two distinct cohorts, one from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and the other from the Banner Alzheimer's Institute (BAI), including prediction accuracy, precision, recall rate, F1 score, and AUC score. Results: Results from ADNI (mean age 72.6, Aβ+ rate 49.5%) and BAI (mean age 66.2, Aβ+ rate 36.9%) datasets revealed the integrated multimodal (IMM) model's superior performance over unimodal models. The IMM model achieved prediction accuracies of 0.86 in ADNI and 0.92 in BAI, surpassing unimodal models based solely on structural MRI (0.81 and 0.87) or plasma Aβ42/40 (0.73 and 0.81) predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our IMM model, combining MRI and BBBM data, offers a highly accurate approach to predict brain amyloid PET positivity. This innovative multiplex biomarker strategy presents an accessible and cost-effective avenue for advancing Alzheimer's disease diagnostics, leveraging diverse pathologic features related to Aβ plaques and structural MRI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".