Nophar Geifman

Dr. Nophar Geifman


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 February 2017 in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
RBRoberta Diaz Brinton
Roberta Diaz Brinton
RKRichard E. Kennedy
Richard E. Kennedy
LSLon S. Schneider
Lon S. Schneider
ABAtul J Butte
Atul J Butte
Despite substantial research and development investment in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), effective therapeutics remain elusive. Significant emerging evidence has linked cholesterol, β-amyloid and AD, and several studies have shown a reduced risk for AD and dementia in populations treated with statins. However, while some clinical trials evaluating statins in general AD populations have been conducted, these resulted in no significant therapeutic benefit. By focusing on subgroups of the AD population, it may be possible to detect endotypes responsive to statin therapy. Here we investigate the possible protective and therapeutic effect of statins in AD through the analysis of datasets of integrated clinical trials, and prospective observational studies. Re-analysis of AD patient-level data from failed clinical trials suggested by trend that use of simvastatin may slow the progression of cognitive decline, and to a greater extent in ApoE4 homozygotes. Evaluation of continual long-term use of various statins, in participants from multiple studies at baseline, revealed better cognitive performance in statin users. These findings were supported in an additional, observational cohort where the incidence of AD was significantly lower in statin users, and ApoE4/ApoE4-genotyped AD patients treated with statins showed better cognitive function over the course of 10-year follow-up. These results indicate that the use of statins may benefit all AD patients with potentially greater therapeutic efficacy in those homozygous for ApoE4.

27 January 2013 in AGE
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
RCRaphael Cohen
Raphael Cohen
EREitan Rubin
Eitan Rubin

15 January 2018 in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
RKRichard E. Kennedy
Richard E. Kennedy
LSLon S. Schneider
Lon S. Schneider
Iain BuchanIain Buchan
Iain Buchan
RBRoberta Diaz Brinton
Roberta Diaz Brinton
Given the complex and progressive nature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a precision medicine approach for diagnosis and treatment requires the identification of patient subgroups with biomedically distinct and actionable phenotype definitions. Longitudinal patient-level data for 1160 AD patients receiving placebo or no treatment with a follow-up of up to 18 months were extracted from an integrated clinical trials dataset. We used latent class mixed modelling (LCMM) to identify patient subgroups demonstrating distinct patterns of change over time in disease severity, as measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale—cognitive subscale score. The optimal number of subgroups (classes) was selected by the model which had the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion. Other patient-level variables were used to define these subgroups’ distinguishing characteristics and to investigate the interactions between patient characteristics and patterns of disease progression. The LCMM resulted in three distinct subgroups of patients, with 10.3% in Class 1, 76.5% in Class 2 and 13.2% in Class 3. While all classes demonstrated some degree of cognitive decline, each demonstrated a different pattern of change in cognitive scores, potentially reflecting different subtypes of AD patients. Class 1 represents rapid decliners with a steep decline in cognition over time, and who tended to be younger and better educated. Class 2 represents slow decliners, while Class 3 represents severely impaired slow decliners: patients with a similar rate of decline to Class 2 but with worse baseline cognitive scores. Class 2 demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of statins use; Class 3 showed lower levels of blood monocytes and serum calcium, and higher blood glucose levels. Our results, ‘learned’ from clinical data, indicate the existence of at least three subgroups of Alzheimer’s patients, each demonstrating a different trajectory of disease progression. This hypothesis-generating approach has detected distinct AD subgroups that may prove to be discrete endophenotypes linked to specific aetiologies. These findings could enable stratification within a clinical trial or study context, which may help identify new targets for intervention and guide better care.

2 December 2019 in Bioinformatics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KMKathryn A McGurk
Kathryn A McGurk
ADArianna Dagliati
Arianna Dagliati
DCDavide Chiasserini
Davide Chiasserini
DLDave Lee
Dave Lee
DPDarren Plant
Darren Plant
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
Data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry allows for comprehensive peptide detection and relative quantification than standard data-dependent approaches. While less prone to missing values, these still exist. Current approaches for handling the so-called missingness have challenges. We hypothesized that non-random missingness is a useful biological measure and demonstrate the importance of analysing missingness for proteomic discovery within a longitudinal study of disease activity. The magnitude of missingness did not correlate with mean peptide concentration. The magnitude of missingness for each protein strongly correlated between collection time points (baseline, 3 months, 6 months; R = 0.95–0.97, confidence interval = 0.94–0.97) indicating little time-dependent effect. This allowed for the identification of proteins with outlier levels of missingness that differentiate between the patient groups characterized by different patterns of disease activity. The association of these proteins with disease activity was confirmed by machine learning techniques. Our novel approach complements analyses on complete observations and other missing value strategies in biomarker prediction of disease activity. Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

11 November 2015 in BMC Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
JBJennifer Bollyky
Jennifer Bollyky
SBSanchita Bhattacharya
Sanchita Bhattacharya
ABAtul J Butte
Atul J Butte
Data generated by the numerous clinical trials conducted annually worldwide have the potential to be extremely beneficial to the scientific and patient communities. This potential is well recognized and efforts are being made to encourage the release of raw patient-level data from these trials to the public. The issue of sharing clinical trial data has recently gained attention, with many agreeing that this type of data should be made available for research in a timely manner. The availability of clinical trial data is most important for study reproducibility, meta-analyses, and improvement of study design. There is much discussion in the community over key data sharing issues, including the risks this practice holds. However, one aspect that remains to be adequately addressed is that of the accessibility, quality, and usability of the data being shared. Herein, experiences with the two current major platforms used to store and disseminate clinical trial data are described, discussing the issues encountered and suggesting possible solutions.

13 February 2024 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HNHana F. Navratilova
Hana F. Navratilova
SLSusan Lanham-New
Susan Lanham-New
AWAnthony David Whetton
Anthony David Whetton
NGNophar Geifman
Nophar Geifman
The UK Biobank is a cohort study that collects data on diet, lifestyle, biomarkers, and health to examine diet–disease associations. Based on the UK Biobank, we reviewed 36 studies on diet and three health conditions: type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Most studies used one-time dietary data instead of repeated 24 h recalls, which may lead to measurement errors and bias in estimating diet–disease associations. We also found that most studies focused on single food groups or macronutrients, while few studies adopted a dietary pattern approach. Several studies consistently showed that eating more red and processed meat led to a higher risk of lung and colorectal cancer. The results suggest that high adherence to “healthy” dietary patterns (consuming various food types, with at least three servings/day of whole grain, fruits, and vegetables, and meat and processed meat less than twice a week) slightly lowers the risk of T2DM, CVD, and colorectal cancer. Future research should use multi-omics data and machine learning models to account for the complexity and interactions of dietary components and their effects on disease risk.