sTREM2 in discordant CSF Aβ<sub>42</sub> and p‐tau181
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Little is known about the factors underpinning discordant cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta (Aβ) 42 versus p‐tau181/Aβ 42 or CSF Aβ 42 versus Aβ positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS We stratified 570 non‐demented Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants by Aβ PET and further by CSF Aβ 42 or p‐tau181/Aβ 42 . We used analysis of covariance testing adjusting for covariates, followed by Tukey post hoc pairwise comparisons, to compare CSF soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells‐2 (sTREM2) across four participant groups: CSF+ Aβ42 with CSF− p‐tau/Aβ42 , CSF− Aβ42 with CSF+ p‐tau/Aβ42 , and concordant CSF Aβ42 /CSF p‐tau/Aβ42 . We also compared sTREM2 across discordant and concordant CSF Aβ42 /PET. RESULTS Regardless of Aβ PET status, CSF+ Aβ42 with CSF− p‐tau/Aβ42 had lower sTREM2 than CSF− Aβ42 with CSF+ p‐tau/Aβ42 . CSF sTREM2 was similarly also associated with discordant CSF Aβ42 /PET. DISCUSSION Our study suggests the potential roles of sTREM2 in discordant CSF Aβ 42 and p‐tau181/Aβ 42 and discordant CSF Aβ42 /PET. Low‐ and high‐CSF sTREM2 may affect the accuracy of p‐tau181/Aβ 42 during the clinical work‐up of AD. Highlights 17% of non‐demented older adults had discordant CSF Aβ 42 versus p‐tau181/Aβ 42 . sTREM2 differed between discordant cases of CSF Aβ 42 versus p‐tau181/Aβ 42 . 20% of non‐demented older adults had discordant CSF Aβ 42 versus Aβ PET. sTREM2 also differed between discordant cases of CSF Aβ 42 versus Aβ PET. p‐tau181/Aβ 42 may miss 6.7% of PET+ non‐demented older adults with low sTREM2.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".