The relationship between serum astroglial and neuronal markers and AQP4 and MOG autoantibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Certain demyelinating disorders, such as neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) exhibit serum autoantibodies against aquaporin-4 (αAQP4) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (αMOG). The variability of the autoantibody presentation warrants further research into subtyping each case. Methods To elucidate the relationship between astroglial and neuronal protein concentrations in the peripheral circulation with occurrence of these autoantibodies, 86 serum samples were analyzed using immunoassays. The protein concentration of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NFL) and tau protein was measured in 3 groups of subcategories of suspected NMOSD: αAQP4 positive (n = 20), αMOG positive (n = 32) and αMOG/αAQP4 seronegative (n = 34). Kruskal-Wallis analysis, univariate predictor analysis, and multivariate logistic regression with ROC curves were performed. Results GFAP and NFL concentrations were significantly elevated in the αAQP4 positive group (p = 0.003; p = 0.042, respectively), and tau was elevated in the αMOG/αAQP4 seronegative group (p < 0.001). A logistic regression model to classify serostatus was able to separate αAQP4 seropositivity using GFAP + tau, and αMOG seropositivity using tau. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) were 0.77 and 0.72, respectively. Finally, a combined seropositivity versus negative status logistic regression model was generated, with AUC = 0.80. Conclusion The 3 markers can univariately and multivariately classify with moderate accuracy the samples with seropositivity and seronegativity for αAQP4 and αMOG.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".