Back

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer's-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer's Disease biomarker discovery cohort

Stamate, D.; Kim, M.; Proitsi, P.; Westwood, S.; Baird, A.; Nevado-Holgado, A.; Hye, A.; Bos, I.; Vos, S.; Vandenberghe, R.; Teunissen, C. E.; Kate, M. T.; Scheltens, P.; Gabel, S.; Meersmans, K.; Blin, O.; Richardson, J.; Roeck, E. D.; Engelborghs, S.; Sleegeres, K.; Bordet, R.; Rami, L.; Kettunen, P.; Tsolaki, M.; Verhey, F.; Alcolea, D.; Lleo, A.; Peyratout, G.; Tainta, M.; Johannsen, P.; Freund-Levi, Y.; Frölich, L.; Dobricic, V.; Frisoni, G. B.; Molinuevo, J. L.; Wallin, A.; Popp, J.; Martinez-Lage, P.; Bertram, L.; Blennow, K.; Zetterberg, H.; Streffer, J.; Visser, P. J.; Lovestone, S.;

2019-09-27 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/19007146
Show abstract

INTRODUCTIONMachine learning (ML) may harbor the potential to capture the metabolic complexity in Alzheimers Disease (AD). Here we set out to test the performance of metabolites in blood to categorise AD when compared to CSF biomarkers. METHODSThis study analysed samples from 242 cognitively normal (CN) people and 115 with AD-type dementia utilizing plasma metabolites (n=883). Deep Learning (DL), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Random Forest (RF) were used to differentiate AD from CN. These models were internally validated using Nested Cross Validation (NCV). RESULTSOn the test data, DL produced the AUC of 0.85 (0.80-0.89), XGBoost produced 0.88 (0.86-0.89) and RF produced 0.85 (0.83-0.87). By comparison, CSF measures of amyloid, p-tau and t-tau (together with age and gender) produced with XGBoost the AUC values of 0.78, 0.83 and 0.87, respectively. DISCUSSIONThis study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. Further studies in independent cohorts are needed to validate whether this specific panel of blood metabolites can separate AD from controls, and how specific it is for AD as compared with other neurodegenerative disorders

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
16.1%
2
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
based on 28 papers
Top 0.1%
13.7%
3
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
based on 31 papers
Top 0.8%
7.9%
4
Alzheimer's & Dementia
based on 84 papers
Top 3%
4.9%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 40%
4.7%
6
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 70%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Translational Psychiatry
based on 94 papers
Top 4%
3.1%
8
Human Brain Mapping
based on 53 papers
Top 3%
2.9%
9
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
based on 31 papers
Top 2%
2.9%
10
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 21%
2.9%
11
Molecular Psychiatry
based on 84 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
12
NeuroImage: Clinical
based on 77 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
13
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
based on 23 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
14
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
based on 26 papers
Top 3%
1.7%
15
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 3%
1.4%
16
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
based on 35 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
18
NeuroImage
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Neurobiology of Aging
based on 29 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Neurology
based on 74 papers
Top 11%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
based on 22 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
22
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 14%
0.7%
23
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 14%
0.7%
24
Genes
based on 21 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
25
GeroScience
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 5%
0.7%