The impact of kidney function on Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers: implications for predicting amyloid-β positivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Impaired kidney function has a potential confounding effect on blood biomarker levels, including biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Given the imminent use of certain blood biomarkers in the routine diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected AD, knowledge on the potential impact of comorbidities on the utility of blood biomarkers is important. We aimed to evaluate the association between kidney function, assessed through estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated from plasma creatinine and AD blood biomarkers, as well as their influence over predicting Aβ-positivity. Methods We included 242 participants from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) cohort, comprising cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU; n = 124), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 58), AD dementia ( n = 34), and non-AD dementia ( n = 26) patients all characterized by [ 18 F] AZD-4694. Plasma samples were analyzed for Aβ42, Aβ40, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181), 217 ( p -tau217), 231 (p-tau231) and N-terminal containing tau fragments (NTA-tau) using Simoa technology. Kidney function was assessed by eGFR in mL/min/1.73 m 2 , based on plasma creatinine levels, age, and sex. Participants were also stratified according to their eGFR-indexed stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the association between eGFR and blood biomarker levels with linear models and assessed whether eGFR provided added predictive value to determine Aβ-positivity with logistic regression models. Results Biomarker concentrations were highest in individuals with CKD stage 3, followed by stages 2 and 1, but differences were only significant for NfL, Aβ42, and Aβ40 (not Aβ42/Aβ40). All investigated biomarkers showed significant associations with eGFR except plasma NTA-tau, with stronger relationships observed for Aβ40 and NfL. However, after adjusting for either age, sex or Aβ-PET SUVr, the association with eGFR was no longer significant for all biomarkers except Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. When evaluating whether accounting for kidney function could lead to improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, we observed no improvements in model fit (Akaike Information Criterion, AIC) or in discriminative performance (AUC) by adding eGFR to a base model including each plasma biomarker, age, and sex. While covariates like age and sex improved model fit, eGFR contributed minimally, and there were no significant differences in clinical discrimination based on AUC values. Conclusions We found that kidney function seems to be associated with AD blood biomarker concentrations. However, these associations did not remain significant after adjusting for age and sex, except for Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. While covariates such as age and sex improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, including eGFR in the models did not lead to improved prediction for any biomarker. Our findings indicate that renal function, within the normal to mild impairment range, does not seem to have a clinically relevant impact when using highly accurate blood biomarkers, such as p-tau217, in a biomarker-supported diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".