ArticleBrain communications2026
Diagnostic classifications based on cognitive, CSF, and PET biomarkers across ADNI cohorts: cross-sectional and longitudinal variability.
Article in Brain communications, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease and related neurodegenerative disorders exhibit marked clinicobiological heterogeneity, posing challenges for accurate diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic development. Using data from multiple cohorts of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we conducted comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal concordance analyses of dementia severity, CSF and PET amyloid and tau. We also examined the stability of biomarker positivity and cognitive status (stable, progressive, reversive and fluctuating) and their inter-relationships. The ability to separate methodological from biological sources of variability is relevant to understanding the robustness of the Amyloid/Tau/Neurodegeneration classification framework, which is particularly important in the era of disease-modifying therapies. Our data revealed both temporal and spatial discrepancies among variables used for classifying the level of cognitive impairment and between the methods used for classifying positive amyloid or tau status (CSF/PET). Methodological discrepancies in region-specific definitions, positivity thresholds and segmentation constraints contributed to PET inconsistencies. Additionally, biomarker status for CSF and PET positivity fluctuated over time, and there was no evidence of temporal precedence for either CSF or PET. There was pronounced spatiotemporal heterogeneity in tau-PET patterns, with implications for the clinical trajectory. Initial tau deposition in the entorhinal cortex, compared to non-limbic meta-temporal regions, was associated with more rapid cognitive decline and greater amyloid burden. Notably, a subset of mild cognitive impairment cases demonstrated diagnostic reversion to cognitively normal status and showed lower amyloid and tau burden and a higher prevalence of affective symptoms, possibly representing individuals without or at an early stage of Alzheimer's pathology. Results underscore the complexity and variability of Alzheimer's disease phenotypes and progression and provide a sanguine perspective on current diagnostic frameworks. Recognizing variability sources in biomarkers is particularly important when diagnosis relies on a single biomarker or cross-sectional data. More importantly, given the complex interplay of factors contributing to dementia and cognitive decline, deep learning and artificial intelligence-based algorithms are needed for precise and individualized diagnoses. Harmonized and standardized datasets with clearly defined variables, without excluding atypical cases, are needed for the effectiveness of such machine learning models. Therefore, investigating Alzheimer's disease biomarker heterogeneity is critical towards maximizing the potential of artificial intelligence in integrating multi-dimensional clinical and biomarker data beyond human-centred interpretation. In this comprehensive work, we provide insights into the observed heterogeneities and their potential contributing factors. We aim to use this insight and continue this effort by harmonizing the conflicting data, making them suitable for diagnostic algorithms and sharing the harmonized dataset in the near future.
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.