Synaptic protein CSF levels relate to memory scores in individuals without dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated how cerebrospinal fluid levels of synaptic proteins associate with memory function in normal cognition (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and investigated the effect of amyloid positivity on these associations. METHODS: We included 242 CN (105(43%) abnormal amyloid), and 278 MCI individuals (183(66%) abnormal amyloid) from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer's Disease Multimodal Biomarker Discovery (EMIF-AD MBD) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For 181 (EMIF-AD MBD) and 36 (ADNI) proteins with a synaptic annotation in SynGO, associations with word learning recall were analysed with linear models. RESULTS: Subsets of synaptic proteins showed lower levels with worse recall in preclinical AD (EMIF-AD MBD: 7, ADNI: 5 proteins, none overlapping), prodromal AD (EMIF-AD MBD only, 27 proteins) and non-AD MCI (EMIF-AD MBD: 1, ADNI: 7 proteins). The majority of these associations were specific to these clinical groups. CONCLUSIONS: Synaptic disturbance-related memory impairment occurred very early in AD, indicating it may be relevant to develop therapies targeting the synapse early in the disease.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".