ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2025
Development and validation of an interpretable clinical scoring model to monitor the progression of preclinical Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 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
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring the progression of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is challenging due to the absence of obvious cognitive impairment, yet it's crucial for determining the optimal timing for disease-modifying treatments.
methodsThis prognostic study used data from the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s Disease (A4) study. The development cohort included 412 participants from the placebo arm, and external validation was performed using 342 participants from the treatment arm. All participants had baseline brain amyloid-beta (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) below 1.4. Using the AutoScore machine learning framework, we developed two interpretable models: the AutoScore Amyloid-Beta (ASAB) model to predict Aβ accumulation (> 1.4 SUVR) and the AutoScore Phosphorylated Tau (ASPT) model to predict plasma phosphorylated tau-217 (pTau-217) elevation (> 0.3 pg/mL) over 4.5 years. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe ASAB model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79–0.95), and the ASPT model achieved 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78–0.94). Modified models excluding baseline Aβ SUVR or pTau-217 values maintained a strong performance (AUC-ROC 0.76–0.82). External validation demonstrated a robust performance, with an AUC-ROC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78–0.87) for ASAB and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.89) for ASPT. Key predictors included baseline biomarker levels, cholesterol, platelet count, alanine transaminase, and creatine kinase.
conclusionsThe AutoScore-based models accurately predict longitudinal Aβ and pTau-217 levels using readily available clinical and laboratory data. These interpretable tools could help clinicians and researchers monitor preclinical AD progression and identify optimal windows for intervention.
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.