ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Application of unsupervised and supervised machine learning approaches to blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease in a memory clinic cohort.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) are promising tools to facilitate biological diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Establishing reliable cutoffs for BBMs represents a major issue for real-world implementation and the investigation of combined BBM approaches is limited. Our aim is to test different machine learning (ML) models for BBMs interpretation with respect to established gold-standard Methods: We selected 434 patients who referred to Perugia University Hospital for perceived cognitive decline with available CSF A β 42/40, pTau181 and tTau and plasma Aβ42, Aβ40, pTau217, pTau181 and NfL. Multiple unsupervised clustering algorithms for cutoff determination and supervised classification models were compared for the prediction of AD defined by a CSF A Results: Different unsupervised clustering models obtained cutoffs with high performances in predicting an AD CSF profile (accuracy > 0.85). Each combination of cutoffs was tested, the best ones achieving A Discussion: Our results prove that clustering approaches can help in identifying reliable BBMs cutoffs for AD diagnosis even in the absence of CSF gold standard reference and that ML approaches combining multiple BBMs can strongly enhance their diagnostic accuracy.
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.