Continuous β-Amyloid CSF/PET Imbalance Model to Capture Alzheimer Disease Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives Discordance between CSF and PET biomarkers of β-amyloid (Aβ) might reflect an imbalance between soluble and aggregated species, possibly reflecting disease heterogeneity. Previous studies generally used binary cutoffs to assess discrepancies in CSF/PET biomarkers, resulting in a loss of information on the extent of discordance. In this study, we (1) jointly modeled Aβ-CSF/PET data to derive a continuous measure of the imbalance between soluble and fibrillar pools of Aβ, (2) investigated factors contributing to this imbalance, and (3) examined associations with cognitive trajectories. Methods Across 822 cognitively unimpaired (n = 261) and cognitively impaired (n = 561) Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative individuals (384 [46.7%] females, mean age 73.0 ± 7.4 years), we fitted baseline CSF-Aβ 42 and global Aβ-PET to a hyperbolic regression model, deriving a participant-specific Aβ-aggregation score (standardized residuals); negative values represent more soluble relative to aggregated Aβ and positive values more aggregated relative to soluble Aβ. Using linear models, we investigated whether methodological factors, demographics, CSF biomarkers, and vascular burden contributed to Aβ-aggregation scores. With linear mixed models, we assessed whether Aβ-aggregation scores were predictive of cognitive functioning. Analyses were repeated in an early independent validation cohort of 383 Amyloid Imaging to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease Prognostic and Natural History Study individuals (224 [58.5%] females, mean age 65.2 ± 6.9 years). Results The imbalance model could be fit (pseudo- R 2 = 0.94) in both cohorts, across CSF kits and PET tracers. Although no associations were observed with the main methodological factors, lower Aβ-aggregation scores were associated with larger ventricular volume (β = 0.13, p < 0.001), male sex (β = −0.18, p = 0.019), and homozygous APOE -ε4 carriership (β = −0.56, p < 0.001), whereas higher scores were associated with increased uncorrected CSF p-tau (β = 0.17, p < 0.001) and t-tau (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), better baseline executive functioning (β = 0.12, p < 0.001), and slower global cognitive decline (β = 0.14, p = 0.006). In the validation cohort, we replicated the associations with APOE -ε4, CSF t-tau, and, although modestly, with cognition. Discussion We propose a novel continuous model of Aβ CSF/PET biomarker imbalance, accurately describing heterogeneity in soluble vs aggregated Aβ pools in 2 independent cohorts across the full Aβ continuum. Aβ-aggregation scores were consistently associated with genetic and AD-associated CSF biomarkers, possibly reflecting disease heterogeneity beyond methodological influences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".