MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406209795 · doi:10.1002/alz.085708

Association of Blood Redox Markers with Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Cognitive Performance

2024· article· en· W4406209795 on OpenAlexaff
Sokratis Charisis, Eva Ntanasi, Eirini Mamalaki, Zoi Skaperda, Adrián Noriega de la Colina, Demetrios Kouretas, Nikolaos Scarmeas

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEicosanoids and Hypertension Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Alzheimer's diseaseCognitionMedicineDiseaseDementiaInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, whether redox perturbations are associated with cognition and AD pathology in the preclinical AD stages, remains unclear. We examined associations of blood redox markers with AD biomarkers and cognitive performance in older adults without clinical dementia. Method In a sample of 141 participants without clinical dementia from a memory clinic‐based cohort, we measured total antioxidant capacity (TAC), reduced glutathione (GSH), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), reducing power (RP), and hydroxyl radical scavenging activity (HRSA), using standard laboratory techniques and absorbance spectrophotometry (Hitachi U‐1500). Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers, including Aβ42, pTau, and tTau, were measured using automated assays (Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics). Global and domain‐specific (i.e., memory, executive function, language, attention, and visuospatial abilities) cognitive performance was assessed with a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Associations of blood redox markers with AD biomarkers and cognitive performance were examined with logistic and linear regression models, respectively. Models were adjusted for age, sex, education, and APOE ε4 carriership. The false discovery rate for each outcome was controlled at <5% using the Benjamini‐Hochberg procedure. Result Mean (SD) age was 64.2 (9.1) years and 95 (67%) of the participants were women (Table 1). Higher TAC and HRSA values were associated with lower odds for pathologically low CSF Aβ42, whereas higher TBARS values were associated with higher odds for pathologically low CSF Aβ42 (Table 2). Higher TAC values were associated with better memory cognitive domain scores, whereas higher TBARS values were associated with worse memory cognitive domain scores (Table 3). Conclusion Higher blood TAC and HRSA, indicating better blood reactive oxygen species‐buffering capacity, were associated with lower odds for pathological CSF Aβ42, whereas higher TBARS, indicating increased lipid peroxidation, was associated with higher odds for pathological CSF Aβ42. Overall, these findings strongly point towards a link between redox imbalance and subclinical AD‐related neuropathology, and highlight the potential role of blood redox markers in AD risk stratification.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicEicosanoids and Hypertension Pharmacology→French-language works237,207→