MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401382146 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.06.24311532

Impact of clinical severity on plasma p-tau performance in predementia Alzheimer’s disease

2024· preprint· en· W4401382146 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando González‐Ortiz, Bjørn‐Eivind Kirsebom, Yara Yakoub, J Gundersen, Lene Pålhaugen, Knut Waterloo, Per Selnes, Jonas Alexander Jarholm, Berglind Gísladóttir, Arvid Rongve, Ragnhild Eide Skogseth, Geir Bråthen, Dag Aarsland, Michael Turton, Peter Harrison, Henrik Zetterberg, Sylvia Villeneuve, Tormod Fladby, Kaj Blennow

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortInternal medicineCerebrospinal fluidBiomarkerMedicineMemory clinicCognitive declinePositron emission tomographyCohort studyAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeGastroenterologyCognitive impairmentOncologyDiseasePsychologyDementiaNuclear medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and objectives Detecting Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biological and clinical changes is crucial for early diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Here we investigate the relationship between clinical severity and levels of phosphorylated tau, focusing on plasma biomarkers, in preclinical and prodromal AD. Methods In this study (n=621), we examined two independent cohorts consisting of preclinical and prodromal AD. Cohort-1 included 431 participants classified as either cognitively normal (CN) or mild cognitive impaired (MCI) with normal or abnormal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40 ratio (A) and p-tau181 (T) [CN A-/T-, n=169; A+/T-, CN=26; MCI=24; A+/T+, CN=40; MCI=105; CN=34; MCI=33]. A total of n=418 of the participants had longitudinal assessments of verbal memory up to 9.67 years from baseline. Cohort-2 included 190 participants in whom amyloid status was determined using Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) [Aβ- CN= 118; Aβ+ CN= 49; Aβ+ MCI= 21]. Results In cohort-1, plasma p-tau217 showed a moderate correlation with its corresponding CSF biomarker (rho=0.65, p<.001) and high accuracy identifying Aβ+ participants (AUC: 0.85). Diagnostic accuracy of plasma p-tau217 was significantly greater for MCI Aβ+ (AUC: 0.89) versus CN Aβ+ (AUC: 0.79, p<.05) and for A+/T+ (AUC: 0.88) versus A+/T- (AUC: 0.78, p<.05). P-tau181 and p-tau231 showed significantly weaker CSF-plasma correlations (rho= 0.47, and rho=0.32, p<.001, respectively) and levels were not as tightly associated with cognitive status in the Aβ+ group. While all the CSF p-tau markers were associated to future cognitive deterioration, p-tau217 was the only plasma biomarker associated with future memory decline (β=0.05, p<0.05). In cohort 1 and 2, plasma p-tau217 showed significantly higher concentrations in MCI Aβ+ as compared to CN Aβ+. Furthermore, plasma p-tau217 demonstrates similar biomarker elevations when compared to CN Aβ- controls in both cohorts. Discussion Our findings indicate that, unlike p-tau181 and p-tau231, plasma p-tau217 consistently aligns with cognitive status in Aβ+ individuals and more closely reflects CSF biomarker abnormalities, potentially reducing discrepancies between clinical and biochemical findings. The associations of plasma p-tau217 with baseline and future cognitive decline make it a valuable complement to clinical evaluations in preclinical and prodromal AD, especially when CSF analysis or PET are not feasible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→