MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399440742 · doi:10.14283/jpad.2024.110

Performance of Plasma Biomarkers Combined with Structural MRI to Identify Candidate Participants for Alzheimer's Disease-Modifying Therapy

2024· article· en· W4399440742 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationEisaiAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsBioClinicaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyBiogenFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsDiseaseMedicineOncologyNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, two monoclonal antibodies that lower amyloid plaques have shown promising results for the treatment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). These treatments require the identification of cognitively impaired older adults with biomarker evidence of AD pathology using CSF biomarkers or amyloid-PET. Previous studies showed plasma biomarkers (plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 and p-tau181) and hippocampal volume from structural MRI correlated with brain amyloid pathology. We hypothesized plasma biomarkers with hippocampal volume would identify patients who are suitable candidates for disease-modifying therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of plasma AD biomarkers and hippocampal atrophy to detect MCI or AD with amyloid pathology confirmed by amyloid-PET or CSF biomarkers in ADNI. DESIGN: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Participants were aged 55-90 years old with plasma biomarker and structural MRI brain data. MEASUREMENTS: The optimum cut-off point for plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and NFL and the performance of combined biomarkers and hippocampal atrophy for detecting cognitive impairment with brain amyloid pathology were evaluated. The association between baseline plasma biomarkers and clinical progression, defined by CDR-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and diagnostic conversion over two years, was evaluated using a Weibull time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 428 participants were included; 167 had normal cognition, 245 had MCI, and 16 had mild AD. Among MCI and AD, 140 participants had elevated amyloid levels by PET or CSF. Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 provided the best accuracy (sensitivity 79%, specificity 66%, AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.77) to detect drug candidate participants at baseline. Combined plasma Aβ42/40, p-tau181, and hippocampal atrophy increased the specificity for diagnosis (96%), but had lower sensitivity (34%), and AUC (0.65). Hippocampal atrophy combined with the abnormal plasma p-tau181 or hippocampal atrophy alone showed high sensitivity to detect clinical progression (by CDR-SB worsening) of the drug-candidate participants within the next 2 years (sensitivity 93% and 89%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Plasma biomarkers and structural MRI can help identify patients who are currently eligible for anti-amyloid treatment and are likely to progress clinically, in cases where amyloid-PET or CSF biomarkers are not available.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it