Diagnostic and predictive power of plasma proteins in Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convenient and effective biomarkers are essential for the early diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In the cross-sectional study, 103 patients with AD, 82 patients with aMCI and 508 normal controls (NC) were enrolled. The single-molecule array (Simoa) technique was used to assess the levels of plasma proteins, including NfL, T-tau, P-tau-181, Aβ40, Aβ42. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess the overall cognitive function of all subjects. Moreover, Amyloid PET and structural head MRI were also performed in a subset of the population. In the follow-up, the previous 508 normal older adults were followed up for two years, then COX regression analysis was used to investigate the association between baseline plasma proteins and future cognitive outcomes. NfL, T-tau, P-tau-181, Aβ40, Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 were altered in AD dementia, and NfL, Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 significantly outperformed all plasma proteins in differentiating AD dementia from NC, while NfL and Aβ42/40 could effectively distinguish between aMCI and NC. However, only plasma NfL was associated with future cognitive decline, and it was negatively correlated with MoCA (r = - 0.298, p < 0.001) and the volume of the left globus pallidus (r = - 0.278, p = 0.033). Plasma NfL can help distinguish between cognitively normal and cognitively impaired individuals (MCI/dementia) at the syndrome level. However, since we have not introduced other biomarkers for AD, such as PET CT or cerebrospinal fluid, and have not verified in other neurodegenerative diseases, whether plasma NFL can be used as a biomarker for AD needs to be further studied and explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".