Comparison of cerebrospinal fluid and plasma oxidative stress biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Numerous studies have highlighted the role of oxidative stress in Alzheimer's disease (AD) development. Yet, the alignment of systemic and central oxidative stress biomarkers is unclear across diverse populations in the AD continuum. This study aims to assess protein damage levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the AD continuum. Methods One hundred forty participants without clinical dementia (47 with Mild Cognitive Impairment [MCI] and 93 cognitively unimpaired) from a memory clinic cohort underwent examination for central (CSF) and systemic (plasma) markers of oxidative stress. We measured Total Antioxidant Capacity (TAC), reduced glutathione (GSH), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and reducing power (RP) using standard laboratory techniques and absorbance spectrophotometry (Hitachi U‐1500). Pearson’s correlations were employed to determine the congruence between the same biomarkers of oxidative stress in CSF and plasma. Factor analysis was performed to ascertain how many antioxidant dimensions they represent. Results Table 1 outlines participants' baseline characteristics. Pearson’s correlation analysis for the entire sample revealed no congruence between CSF and plasma in TAC (r=+.087) and GSH (r=.‐.161), while CSF and plasma RP (r=.+385*) and TBARS (r=‐.216*) were correlated (Figure 1). Upon analyzing group‐level data, the cognitively unimpaired group showed congruence between CSF and plasma for GSH (r.=‐.279*) and TBARS (r=‐.287*) but not for TAC (r=+.191) and RP (r=+.202). In the MCI group, only RP (r.=+.640*) demonstrated congruence between CSF and plasma. Factor analysis with CSF biomarkers identified two components in the whole sample (Figure 2). Dimension 1= GSH, and Dimension 2=TAC, TBARS, and RP. Factor analysis with plasma identified as well two components: Dimension 1=RP and GSH, Dimension 2=TBARS and TAC. The factor analysis for the MCI group revealed the presence of a single component for CSF biomarkers, while there were two components for plasma: Dimension 1=RP and TBARS, Dimension 2=TAC and GSH. Conclusion Oxidative stress biomarker patterns differ across the AD continuum. RP demonstrates the most reliability, while TAC is the least. GSH and TBARS plasma and CSF measurements are negatively associated in the cognitively unimpaired, but not in the MCI population. Understanding oxidative biomarker evolution can enhance our comprehension of their role in AD and age‐related disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".