MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411216500 · doi:10.58840/xaa0wd39

Early Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease: Biomarkers and Cognitive Screening Tools

2025· article· en· W4411216500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Danda Vasconcelos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueOTS Canadian Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseCognitionMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention, disease management, and improved quality of life. This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of combining cognitive screening tools—Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)—with blood-based biomarkers, including amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio (Aβ42/40) and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), for early identification of AD. A total of 180 participants categorized as cognitively normal (CN), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or early-stage AD were assessed. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including ANOVA, Pearson correlation, t-tests, multiple linear regression, and ROC curve analysis, were conducted using IBM SPSS and GraphPad Prism. Results revealed significant differences across diagnostic groups in both cognitive scores and biomarker levels. MoCA and p-tau181 demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy with AUC values of 0.947 and 0.936, respectively. Regression analysis confirmed all four indicators as significant predictors of AD diagnosis (p < 0.001). Strong correlations were observed between cognitive decline and biomarker abnormalities. These findings support a multidimensional approach that integrates cognitive and biological assessments for early Alzheimer’s detection. The use of non-invasive, scalable biomarker testing alongside cognitive tools enhances diagnostic precision and holds significant potential for implementation in clinical and community settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTS Canadian JournalSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207