Biofluid-based staging of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, conceptual systems for the in vivo staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using fluid biomarkers have been suggested. Thus, it is important to assess whether available fluid biomarkers can successfully stage AD into clinically and biologically relevant categories. In the TRIAD cohort, we explored whether p-tau217, p-tau205 and NTA-tau (biomarkers of early, intermediate and late AD pathology, respectively) have potential for biofluid-based staging in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF; n = 219) and plasma (n = 150), and compared them in a paired CSF and plasma subset (n = 76). Our findings suggest a good concordance between biofluid staging and underlying pathology when classifying amyloid-positivity into three categories based on neurofibrillary pathology: minimal/non-existent (p-tau217 positive), early-to-intermediate (p-tau217 and p-tau205 positivity), and advanced tau tangle deposition (p-tau217, p-tau205 and NTA-tau positive), as indexed by tau-PET. Discordant cases accounted for 4.6% and 13.3% of all CSF and plasma measurements respectively (9.2% and 11.8% in paired samples). Notably, CSF- and plasma-based staging matched one another in 61.7% of the cases, while approximately 32% of the remaining participants were one to three biofluid stages higher in CSF as compared to plasma. Overall, these exploratory results suggest that biofluid staging of AD holds potential for offering valuable insights into underlying AD hallmarks and disease severity. However, its applicability beyond molecular characterization at research settings has yet to be demonstrated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".