CSF and plasma biomarkers in cerebral amyloid angiopathy: A single-center study and a systematic review/meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: There are limited data regarding cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarkers among patients with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy (CAA). We sought to investigate the levels of four biomarkers [β-amyloids (Aβ42 and Aβ40), total tau (tau) and phosphorylated tau (p-tau)] in CAA patients compared to healthy controls (HC) and patients with Alzheimer Disease (AD). Patients and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies, including also a 5 year single-center cohort study, with available data on CSF and plasma biomarkers in symptomatic sporadic CAA versus HC and AD was conducted. Biomarkers’ comparisons were investigated using random-effects models based on the ratio of mean (RoM) biomarker concentrations. RoM < 1 and RoM > 1 indicate lower and higher biomarker concentration in CAA compared to another population, respectively. Results: We identified nine cohorts, comprising 327 CAA patients (mean age: 71 ± 5 years; women: 45%) versus 336 HC (mean age: 65 ± 5 years; women: 45%) and 384 AD patients (mean age: 68 ± 3 years; women: 53%) with available data on CSF biomarkers. CSF Aβ42 levels [RoM: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.62; p < 0.0001], Aβ40 levels [RoM: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63–0.79; p < 0.0001] and the ratio Aβ42/Aβ40 [RoM: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39–0.98; p = 0.0438] differentiated CAA from HC. CSF Aβ40 levels [RoM: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64–0.83; p = 0.0003] differentiated CAA from AD. CSF tau and p-tau levels differentiated CAA from HC [RoM: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.41–2.09; p = 0.0002 and RoM: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.20–1.73; p = 0.0014, respectively] and from AD [RoM: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.58–0.72; p < 0.0001 and RoM: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.57–0.71; p < 0.0001, respectively]. Plasma Aβ42 [RoM: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.89–1.45; p = 0.2079] and Aβ40 [RoM: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.91–1.25; p = 0.3306] levels were comparable between CAA and HC. Conclusions: CAA is characterized by a distinct CSF biomarker pattern compared to HC and AD. CSF Aβ40 levels are lower in CAA compared to HC and AD, while tau and p-tau levels are higher in CAA compared to HC, but lower in comparison to AD patients.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".