MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117299087 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_103686

Assessing biomarkers for predicting Alzheimer's disease in TBI patients: A subanalysis of the double‐blinded, phase III randomized clinical trial with biperiden

2025· article· en· W7117299087 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Longoni Calió, Luis E. Santos, Amanda Cristina Mosini, Maira Licia Foresti, Fernanda Guarino De Felice, Luiz Eugênio De Moraes Mello

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialDiseaseBiomarkerClinical trialPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a significant risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, the mechanisms connecting TBI to AD pathology remain unclear. Identifying blood-based biomarkers of neuronal and astrocytic injury is crucial for advancing precision diagnostics and intervention by predicting neurodegeneration. This study evaluates serum biomarkers using the ultra-sensitive Single Molecule Array (SIMOA) platform to explore their association with TBI severity, sex-specific responses and potential relevance to AD. METHODS: We conducted a subanalysis of 123 patients enrolled in the phase III NCT01048138 clinical trial at HCFMUSP. Participants with acute TBI were randomized to receive either biperiden or placebo. Serum samples were collected and analyzed at multiple time points for biomarkers including Tau, NfL, GFAP, and UCHL1 using SIMOA. Biomarker profiles were compared across treatment groups, TBI severity, sex, age and time post-injury. Additional analyses explored their relevance to AD-related neurodegenerative process. RESULTS: GFAP and NfL emerged as the most reliable biomarkers, strongly correlating with age, sex, TBI severity and temporal progression post-injury. Intriguingly, elevated levels of these biomarkers in the acute phase post-TBI were associated with astrocytic and axonal injury, which are critical in AD pathology. UCHL1 levels are also associated with trauma severity, sex, and time post-injury, but less significantly than NfL and GFAP. Women exhibited higher levels of levels Tau, GFAP and UCHL1 but lower NfL levels compared to men, suggesting a potential sex-specific response. Age-stratified analyses revealed increased NfL and GFAP levels in older patients, emphasizing the impact of age on astrocytic activation. While biperiden treatment did not significantly alter biomarker levels across the overall cohort, exploratory analyses also revealed possible sex-specific trends in treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the feasibility of serum biomarkers such as GFAP and NfL to bridge the understanding of the molecular link between TBI and AD. The SIMOA technology enables precise quantification of biomarkers, providing valuable knowledge into the time window from the moment of TBI to the development of AD, allowing for the analysis of long-term neurodegeneration. These results reinforces the importance of personalized approaches to diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→