ArticleiScience2025
Machine learning-derived biomarker cutoffs for Alzheimer's disease: Validation and application in preclinical and prodromal phases.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to derive biomarker cutoffs in Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) and validate their concordance in preclinical and prodromal stages. 341 sporadic and 103 familial participants were selected from the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST) and the Chinese Familial Alzheimer's Disease Network (CFAN) cohorts, separately. Machine learning was used to generate prediction models and biomarker cutoffs for identifying ADD. Agreement test was used in cognitive normal and mild cognitive impairment (CN + MCI) participants. For COAST, the optimal regression model was CSF Aβ42/40, ptau and left medial temporal atrophy (MTA-L), with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.841. The optimal decision tree model was CSF Aβ42/ptau, Aβ42/ttau, and MTA-L (AUC = 0.820). For CFAN, the optimal regression model was left precuneus relative volume and MTA-L (AUC = 0.935). The optimal decision tree model was left hippocampal and precuneus relative volume (AUC = 0.806). They showed significant concordance in CN + MCI participants with cutoff-based diagnosis in ADD. Machine learning-enhanced thresholds could improve participant stratification in early Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.