Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease using plasma biomarkers adjusted to clinical probability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently approved anti-amyloid immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) require evidence of amyloid-β pathology from positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) before initiating treatment. Blood-based biomarkers promise to reduce the need for PET or CSF testing; however, their interpretation at the individual level and the circumstances requiring confirmatory testing are poorly understood. Individual-level interpretation of diagnostic test results requires knowledge of disease prevalence in relation to clinical presentation (clinical pretest probability). Here, in a study of 6,896 individuals evaluated from 11 cohort studies from six countries, we determined the positive and negative predictive value of five plasma biomarkers for amyloid-β pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in relation to clinical pretest probability. We observed that p-tau217 could rule in amyloid-β pathology in individuals with probable AD dementia (positive predictive value above 95%). In mild cognitive impairment, p-tau217 interpretation depended on patient age. Negative p-tau217 results could rule out amyloid-β pathology in individuals with non-AD dementia syndromes (negative predictive value between 90% and 99%). Our findings provide a framework for the individual-level interpretation of plasma biomarkers, suggesting that p-tau217 combined with clinical phenotyping can identify patients where amyloid-β pathology can be ruled in or out without the need for PET or CSF confirmatory testing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".