Genetic-based patient stratification in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows a high pathological and symptomatological heterogeneity. To study this heterogeneity, we have developed a patient stratification technique based on one of the most significant risk factors for the development of AD: genetics. We addressed this challenge by including network biology concepts, mapping genetic variants data into a brain-specific protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, and obtaining individualized PPI scores that we then used as input for a clustering technique. We then phenotyped each obtained cluster regarding genetics, sociodemographics, biomarkers, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging, and neurocognitive assessments. We found three clusters defined mainly by genetic variants found in MAPT, APP, and APOE, considering known variants associated with AD and other neurodegenerative disease genetic architectures. Profiling of these clusters revealed minimal variation in AD symptoms and pathology, suggesting different biological mechanisms may activate the neurodegeneration and pathobiological patterns behind AD and result in similar clinical and pathological presentations, even a shared disease diagnosis. Lastly, our research highlighted MAPT, APP, and APOE as key genes where these genetic distinctions manifest, suggesting them as potential targets for personalized drug development strategies to address each AD subgroup individually.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".