EBF1 is a potential biomarker for predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease: an in silico study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an important clinical challenge. This study aimed to identify the independent risk factors and develop a nomogram model that can predict progression from MCI to AD. Methods Data of 141 patients with MCI were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. We set a follow-up time of 72 months and defined patients as stable MCI (sMCI) or progressive MCI (pMCI) according to whether or not the progression of MCI to AD occurred. We identified and screened independent risk factors by utilizing weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), where we obtained 14,893 genes after data preprocessing and selected the soft threshold β = 7 at an R2 of 0.85 to achieve a scale-free network. A total of 14 modules were discovered, with the midnightblue module having a strong association with the prognosis of MCI. Using machine learning strategies, which included the least absolute selection and shrinkage operator and support vector machine-recursive feature elimination; and the Cox proportional-hazards model, which included univariate and multivariable analyses, we identified and screened independent risk factors. Subsequently, we developed a nomogram model for predicting the progression from MCI to AD. The performance of our nomogram was evaluated by the C-index, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Bioinformatics analysis and immune infiltration analysis were conducted to clarify the function of early B cell factor 1 (EBF1). Results First, the results showed that 40 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) related to the prognosis of MCI were generated by weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Second, five hub variables were obtained through the abovementioned machine learning strategies. Third, a low Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score [hazard ratio (HR): 4.258, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.994–9.091] and low EBF1 expression (hazard ratio: 3.454, 95% confidence interval: 1.813–6.579) were identified as the independent risk factors through the Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. Finally, we developed a nomogram model including the MoCA score, EBF1, and potential confounders (age and gender). By evaluating our nomogram model and validating it in both internal and external validation sets, we demonstrated that our nomogram model exhibits excellent predictive performance. Through the Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes Genomes (KEGG) functional enrichment analysis, and immune infiltration analysis, we found that the role of EBF1 in MCI was closely related to B cells. Conclusion EBF1, as a B cell-specific transcription factor, may be a key target for predicting progression from MCI to AD. Our nomogram model was able to provide personalized risk factors for the progression from MCI to AD after evaluation and validation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".