Clinical Implications of an Integrated Clinical and Biological Staging Scheme for Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose This study aimed to characterize the clinical heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by implementing an integrated biological and clinical staging scheme for AD.Methods Clinical staging was performed in 193 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative based on cognitive scores, while biological staging was performed based on global tau deposition in tau positron-emission tomography (PET).The discrepancy between clinical and biological stages was quantified as standardized residuals (W-scores), and classified into the following groups: concordant clinical and biological stages (W0), worse clinical stage (W-), and better clinical stage (W+).Longitudinal changes in cognition, clinical progression, copathology burden, and brain metabolism on [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scans were compared between these groups.Results Relative to the W0 group, the W-group showed a faster cognitive decline and higher progression risk (hazard ratio [HR]=2.40,95% confidence interval [CI]=1.20-4.83),while the W+ group had a lower progression risk (HR=0.43,95% CI=0.19-0.96).The copathology burden at autopsy (n=7) was correlated with the W-score (partial r=-0.87,p=0.023); however, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample.The ratio of cerebrospinal fluid α-synuclein positivity differed significantly between the groups, reaching 56.3% in the W-group.Brain metabolism in the occipital, orbitofrontal, dorsolateral frontal, inferior and medial temporal cortex, and precuneus was lower in the W-group than in the W0 group, whereas it was higher in the W+ group in the prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortex. ConclusionsThe integration of clinical and biological staging has significant potential in clinical practice by providing information about copathologies, underlying neurodegeneration, and the progression of AD.
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 | 0.023 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".