Relationships between plasma biomarkers, neuroimaging markers and cognition in cerebral amyloid angiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study examined whether plasma Aβ 42/40, phosphorylated‐tau ( p ‐tau), neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may relate to cognitive function and other neuroimaging biomarkers in cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Method This is a cross‐sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study of participants with CAA who had plasma collected, underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cognitive evaluation. Plasma Aβ was quantified independently through Simoa and immunoprecipitation‐mass spectrometry (IP‐MS), while p ‐tau181, NfL and GFAP were quantified through Simoa. Result There were 45 participants with probable CAA (Boston criteria v2.0) eligible for analysis. In multivariable linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and years of education, higher NfL levels were associated with lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total score (β=‐1.85, p = 0.02) while lower Aβ 42/40 was associated with lower speed of processing both with IP‐MS (β =0.63, p = 0.003) and Simoa (β =0.38, p = 0.02) methodology. After adjustment for age and sex, higher white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume was associated with lower Aβ 42/40 (IP‐MS), β =‐0.48, p = 0.009 and higher p ‐tau181, β =0.35, p = 0.04, but not NfL or GFAP. Higher concentrations of plasma GFAP were associated with lower total cortical volumes (β =‐0.40, p = 0.042). Furthermore, higher levels of NfL were associated with lower global cerebrovascular reactivity (β=‐0.46, p = 0.008) and higher ordinal CAA severity scale score (aOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.17, 4.36, p = 0.02). Conclusion Lower plasma Aβ 42/40 was associated with lower speed of processing function, while plasma NfL was associated with worse performance on a global measure of cognitive performance, lower cerebrovascular reactivity, and higher CAA severity score. Interestingly, higher p ‐tau181 and lower Aβ 42/40 (IP‐MS) was associated with higher WMH volumes. These findings suggest that cognitive impairment in patients with CAA may be associated with markers of progressive white matter damage rather than tau‐related cortical injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".