Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36776048›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2023

Machine Learning Selection of Most Predictive Brain Proteins Suggests Role of Sugar Metabolism in Alzheimer's Disease.

Raghav Tandon, Allan I Levey, James J Lah, Nicholas T Seyfried, Cassie S Mitchell

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Raghav TandonLaboratory for Pathology Dynamics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Allan I LeveyDepartment of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
James J LahDepartment of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Nicholas T SeyfriedDepartment of Biochemistry, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Cassie S MitchellLaboratory for Pathology Dynamics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Emory University · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Regulatory and Human Study Operations (RHSO) Core CU19AG065169 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI WORLEY, PAUL F · 2021 to 2025
$59.8M
The Emory Healthy Brain Study: Discovering Predictive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG070937 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI LAH, JAMES J · 2021 to 2025
$35.2M
The Goizueta Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066511 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Amy D Rodriguez · 2020 to 2026
$29.0M
The Emory Alzheimer's Disease CenterP50AG025688 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI WALKER, LARY C · 2005 to 2019
$25.7M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066511NIA NIH HHS P50 AG025688NIA NIH HHS R01 AG070937NIA NIH HHS U19 AG065169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe complex and not yet fully understood etiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows important proteopathic signs which are unlikely to be linked to a single protein. However, protein subsets from deep proteomic datasets can be useful in stratifying patient risk, identifying stage dependent disease markers, and suggesting possible disease mechanisms.

objectiveThe objective was to identify protein subsets that best classify subjects into control, asymptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AsymAD), and AD.

methodsData comprised 6 cohorts; 620 subjects; 3,334 proteins. Brain tissue-derived predictive protein subsets for classifying AD, AsymAD, or control were identified and validated with label-free quantification and machine learning.

resultsA 29-protein subset accurately classified AD (AUC = 0.94). However, an 88-protein subset best predicted AsymAD (AUC = 0.92) or Control (AUC = 0.92) from AD (AUC = 0.98). AD versus Control: APP, DHX15, NRXN1, PBXIP1, RABEP1, STOM, and VGF. AD versus AsymAD: ALDH1A1, BDH2, C4A, FABP7, GABBR2, GNAI3, PBXIP1, and PRKAR1B. AsymAD versus Control: APP, C4A, DMXL1, EXOC2, PITPNB, RABEP1, and VGF. Additional predictors: DNAJA3, PTBP2, SLC30A9, VAT1L, CROCC, PNP, SNCB, ENPP6, HAPLN2, PSMD4, and CMAS.

conclusionBiomarkers were dynamically separable across disease stages. Predictive proteins were significantly enriched to sugar metabolism.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBrainHSP40 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansHydroxybutyrate DehydrogenaseMachine LearningProteinsProteomicsSugarsBDH2 protein, humanDMXL1 protein, humanDNAJA3 protein, humanHSP40 Heat-Shock ProteinsHydroxybutyrate DehydrogenaseProteinsSugarsAlzheimer’s diseasebiomarkersmachine learningmetabolismproteomicsrecursive feature elimination

Identifiers

PMID36776048
PMCPMC10041447
OpenAlexW4319345240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.