Feature harmonization reveals that apparent cross-cohort differences in tau-positivity prediction reflect variable availability and cohort stage structure
Bhat A, Cestari M, Chen C, Fleming BT, Fleming GT, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. medRxiv, 2026-10-21
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Results In the primary matched-feature comparison, reference areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were 0.851 for ADNI tau90, 0.860 for ADNI tau180, and 0.933 for OASIS3 tau180. Severity-only models retained 86–99% of reference performance, whereas demographic/genetic-only models retained 85–87%; bootstrap confidence intervals showed that the reference-minus-demo contrast remained positive across all primary cohorts. After harmonization with a matched feature set including age, the pre-harmonization demographic gap was no longer attributable to feature availability; the residual difference was most consistent with cohort disease-stage composition asymmetry, with CDR-SB = 0 prevalence of 84.5–88.7% in OASIS3 versus 49.3–51.7% in ADNI.
Key findings
- Results In the primary matched-feature comparison, reference areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were 0.851 for ADNI tau90, 0.860 for ADNI tau180, and 0.933 for OASIS3 tau180.
- Severity-only models retained 86–99% of reference performance, whereas demographic/genetic-only models retained 85–87%; bootstrap confidence intervals showed that the reference-minus-demo contrast remained positive across all primary cohorts.
- After harmonization with a matched feature set including age, the pre-harmonization demographic gap was no longer attributable to feature availability; the residual difference was most consistent with cohort disease-stage composition asymmetry, with CDR-SB = 0 prevalence of 84.5–88.7% in OASIS3 versus 49.3–51.7% in ADNI.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Effect size88.7%; 51.7%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 27 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 27 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 17 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 27 out of 100. |
| Total | 27 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Bhat, A., Cestari, M., Chen, C., Fleming, B. T., Fleming, G. T., & the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2026). Feature harmonization reveals that apparent cross-cohort differences in tau-positivity prediction reflect variable availability and cohort stage structure. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.16.26365770
Vancouver
Bhat A, Cestari M, Chen C, Fleming BT, Fleming GT, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Feature harmonization reveals that apparent cross-cohort differences in tau-positivity prediction reflect variable availability and cohort stage structure. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.10.16.26365770.
BibTeX
@article{bhat2026-30b24f10,
author = {Bhat, A. and Cestari, M. and Chen, C. and Fleming, B. T. and Fleming, G. T. and {the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Feature harmonization reveals that apparent cross-cohort differences in tau-positivity prediction reflect variable availability and cohort stage structure}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.16.26365770},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.16.26365770}
}