Utility of plasma GFAP as a secondary endpoint for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have recently incorporated plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) as an exploratory endpoint. To include plasma GFAP as a secondary endpoint, it is essential to characterize its longitudinal progression in target populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential use of plasma GFAP changes as a secondary endpoint in Alzheimer's disease trials. METHODS: We longitudinally evaluated plasma GFAP in individuals with amyloid-beta (Aβ)-PET scans at baseline in three well-characterized cohorts. Cox proportional hazards regression tested the association between changes in plasma GFAP and cognitive function. Analysis of the 95 % confidence interval of annualized change in plasma GFAP provided statistical inference for a significant longitudinal change. Effect size was calculated as the group mean divided by the standard deviation (SD). We estimated the sample size needed to test a 25% drug effect with 80% power on reducing changes in GFAP. RESULTS: We assessed 487 individuals [176 cognitively unimpaired (CU; 29% Aβ positive) and 311 cognitively impaired (CI; 51% Aβ positive)] with some degree of cerebrovascular disease (Fazekas 1-3), over a mean (SD) follow-up of 1.84 (0.46) years. Changes in plasma GFAP were significantly associated with worsening in Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes (CDR-SB) score across the population (p < 0.0001). In CU, only Aβ positive individuals showed significant changes in GFAP (p < 0.001). On the other hand, both CI Aβ positive and negative individuals showed longitudinal progression in GFAP levels (p < 0.0001). The effect size of changes in plasma GFAP was higher in CU Aβ positive (0.44), followed by CI Aβ positive (0.42) and CI Aβ negative (0.38). Clinical trials focusing on CU Aβ positive would require 1320 individuals per study arm, while focusing on CI Aβ positive would require 1440 individuals per study arm. CONCLUSION: Plasma GFAP increased in parallel with cognitive decline, making it a candidate for monitoring disease progression in trials aimed at mitigating cognitive deterioration. Although Aβ positivity significantly accelerated GFAP progression, the fact that GFAP was increased in CI Aβ negative with cerebrovascular disease supports its potential use as a secondary endpoint in this population as well.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".