MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411495137 · doi:10.1002/ana.27285

Timing of Changes in Alzheimer's Disease Plasma Biomarkers as Assessed by Amyloid and Tau <scp>PET</scp> Clocks

2025· article· en· W4411495137 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marta Milà‐Alomà, Duygu Tosun, Suzanne E. Schindler, Isabella Hausle, Kellen K. Petersen, Yan Li, Jeffrey L. Dage, Lei Du‐Cuny, Ziad S. Saad, Benjamin Saef, Gallen Triana‐Baltzer, David Raunig, Janaky Coomaraswamy, Michael V. Baratta, Emily A. Meyers, Yulia Mordashova, Carrie E. Rubel, Kyle Ferber, Hartmuth C. Kolb, Nicholas J. Ashton, Henrik Zetterberg, Erin G. Rosenbaugh, Martin Sabandal, Leslie M. Shaw, Anthony W. Bannon, William Z. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierGöteborgs UniversitetEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbFujirebio USBioClinicaAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiomarkerPositron emission tomographyAmyloid (mycology)MedicineInternal medicineOncologyAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseNeuroimagingTimelineAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativePathologyPsychologyNuclear medicineBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the timing of change of Alzheimer's disease (AD) plasma biomarkers (Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau217, p-tau181, GFAP, and NfL) from six different assay platforms, alongside established AD biomarkers, using amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET)-based AD progression timelines. METHODS: Data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), including 784 individuals with longitudinal amyloid PET and 359 with longitudinal tau PET, were analyzed to estimate the age at amyloid and tau PET positivity, respectively. Longitudinal plasma biomarker measurements were available from 190 individuals with an estimated amyloid PET positivity age and from 70 individuals with an estimated tau PET positivity age. In a subset of 17 clinical progressors, age at tau PET positivity strongly predicted symptom onset, allowing for estimation of symptom onset age. Biomarker trajectories based on time from amyloid or tau PET positivity or symptom onset were modelled using Generalized Additive Mixed models. Time intervals of significant biomarker change and the earliest timepoints at which biomarkers exceeded predefined abnormality thresholds were identified. RESULTS: All plasma biomarkers except NfL became abnormal prior to established thresholds for amyloid and tau PET positivity. Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 became abnormal very early in both amyloid PET and tau PET timelines, while plasma GFAP became abnormal early in the tau PET timeline. Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 levels plateaued, whereas plasma p-tau217, p-tau181, GFAP, and NfL levels increased throughout the modeled disease progression. Some variations in the timing of these changes were observed across different biomarker assays. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that the plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 may be useful in identifying individuals with very low levels of amyloid pathology, whereas p-tau, GFAP, and NfL may be useful in staging disease progression. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:508-523.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207