Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

A reproducibility-audit framework for generalizable versus dataset-specific molecular transition boundaries in Alzheimer's disease

Created on 02 Sep 2026

Authors

Kim, Y., Heo, W., Park, S. J., Kim, Y., Cho, Y. E.

Abstract

Molecular staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) increasingly defines transition boundaries along single-cell pseudo-progression trajectories, yet whether such boundaries reproduce across brain regions, cohorts and molecular modalities is rarely tested. We present a permutation-controlled audit that combines nine boundary-detection algorithms with a fixed marker panel and four orthogonal reproducibility axes-algorithmic consensus, region, cohort and modality. On synthetic data with planted ground-truth boundaries the audit reaches 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity, rejecting four distinct artefact classes each by a different axis. Applied to the Seattle Alzheimer's Disease Brain Cell Atlas middle temporal gyrus, it localizes a transition that is robust across algorithms and recovered in most cell types but does not generalize: its leading marker is attenuated or absent in prefrontal cortex, entorhinal cortex and cerebrospinal fluid, and an apparent cross-region conservation of glial metabolic genes proves to be a global-expression offset rather than a shared program. The same audit nonetheless certifies an externally validated marker (astrocytic PTGDS) as reproducible across regions and modalities, showing that it separates generalizable anchors from dataset-specific ones rather than rejecting all signals. We provide this four-axis audit as a transferable, code-available standard to apply before a trajectory boundary is read as a biological stage, in AD and other progressive proteinopathies.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 02 Sep 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 4
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement