2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.trci.2019.11.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: Introduction Machine learning (ML) may harbor the potential to capture the metabolic complexity in Alzheimer Disease (AD). Here we set out to test the performance of metabolites in blood to categorize AD when compared to CSF biomarkers. Methods This study analyzed 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 w… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
68
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
68
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, we have also previously shown that soluble intracellular cell adhesion molecule-1 in CSF is associated with AD (18). At metabolite level, we identi ed 10 molecules in CSF associated with Tau and P-Tau, which differ from the blood biomarkers associated with AD identi ed in a recent study in a large sample (35). Overall, our approach identi ed more molecules associated with AD pathology as compared to previous studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…In addition, we have also previously shown that soluble intracellular cell adhesion molecule-1 in CSF is associated with AD (18). At metabolite level, we identi ed 10 molecules in CSF associated with Tau and P-Tau, which differ from the blood biomarkers associated with AD identi ed in a recent study in a large sample (35). Overall, our approach identi ed more molecules associated with AD pathology as compared to previous studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Comparing our results with the three recent relevant studies (see Table V), we note that the panels identified in [25] and [26] classified ADD and HC with high performance, but the markers were reported by the authors to be poor at distinguishing between MCI and HC. Furthermore, while study [27] achieved high AUC of 0.88 with XGBoost model for classification of ADD and HC, the model's performance has not been evaluated for disease detection at MCI stage. Due to unavailability of biomarkers used in the study in our study data, the performance of the models for MCI and HC classification was not investigated in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In another study, a 12-marker panel classified ADD and HC with 90% SN and 66.7% specificity, and higher performance in post-mortem confirmed AD cases [26]. Furthermore, a study [27] that explored the use of deep learning, random forest, and XGBoost algorithms for classification of ADD and HC achieved AUC of 0.88 with XGBoost algorithm and 0.85 with deep learning and random forest. Despite the promising results from these studies, most of the models were developed and evaluated using data from cognitively healthy controls and subjects at the later stages of the disease.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Interestingly, Stamate et al, using a 883-feature metabolomic dataset produced three biosignatures: one with AUC 0.850 (0.800–0.890) via Deep learning, a second of AUC 0.880 (0.860–0.890) via an XGBoost model and a last of AUC 0.850 (0.830–0.870) via an Random Forest model, respectively. However, all those biosignatures contained as much as 347 predictors [ 30 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%