MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416565590 · doi:10.1016/j.jnha.2025.100726

An integrative approach to detecting potential blood-based biomarkers of cognitive frailty

2025· article· en· W4416565590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Motoki Furutani, Mutsumi Suganuma, Tohru Hosoyama, Risa Mitsumori, Marie Takemura, Yasumoto Matsui, Yukiko Nakano, Shumpei Niida, Kouichi Ozaki, Shosuke Satake, Daichi Shigemizu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe journal of nutrition health & aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Geriatrics and GerontologyJapan Health Research Promotion BureauJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsCognitionMyristic acidDiseaseCognitive impairmentMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive frailty, defined by the coexistence of cognitive decline and physical frailty, has been clinically defined, but its biological clues are still vague. This underscores the need for promising blood-based molecular biomarkers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Frailty was diagnosed using the Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study (J-CHS), and mild cognitive impairment was assessed with the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) and Mini-Mental State Examination-Japanese (MMSE-J). Participants with MMSE-J ≥24, MoCA-J score ≤25, and J-CHS score ≥1 were classified as having cognitive frailty. This study included 87 older adults aged ≥65 years, comprising 44 robust and 43 with cognitive frailty. MEASUREMENTS: Blood samples and associated clinical data were obtained from the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology Biobank in Japan. A multi-omics analysis integrating clinical data, RNA-seq, aging-related factors, and metabolomics were conducted to identify potential biomarkers through logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). An optimal set of biomarkers was determined by constructing prediction models using the random forest algorithm. RESULTS: Three candidate biomarkers were identified from aging-related factors-growth differentiation factor (GDF15), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and Adiponectin-and three from metabolomics-myristic acid, nicotinamide, and γ-butyrobetaine. Using combinations of these candidates with clinical variables, we constructed risk prediction models. The best model incorporated one aging-related factors (GDF15) and two metabolites (myristic acid, and nicotinamide), achieving a high area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.96 in an independent validation cohort. This was significantly higher than models based solely on clinical information (age, sex, and BMI) (Welch's t-test, p <0.001). Among these biomarkers, myristic acid showed the highest influence, with a median Gini importance of 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: We identified three promising biomarkers-GDF15, myristic acid, and nicotinamide-for cognitive frailty. Notably, low plasma myristic acid levels emerged as the most significant contributor to the prediction model. Further refinement and large-scale validation will be essential to support its future clinical application.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.336
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueThe journal of nutrition health & agingSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207