MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310484205 · doi:10.1101/2022.11.29.22282870

NeuropsychBrainAge: a biomarker for conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease

2022· preprint· en· W4310484205 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Jorge García Condado, Jesús M. Cortés

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFundación Bancaria Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de BarcelonaGenentechIXICOServierH. Lundbeck A/SIkerbasque, Basque Foundation for ScienceEisaiPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
Mots-clésNeuroimagingNeuropsychologyBiomarkerImaging biomarkerCognitive impairmentNeuropsychological assessmentCognitionPsychologyDementiaDiseaseNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceAudiologyMedicineCognitive psychologyInternal medicineRadiologyComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingBiologyGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background BrainAge models based on neuroimaging data have shown good accuracy for diagnostic classification. However, they have replicability issues due to site and patient variability intrinsic to neuroimaging techniques. We aimed to develop a BrainAge model trained on neuropsychological tests to identify a biomarker to distinguish stable mild cognitive impairment (sMCI) from progressive mild cognitive impairment (pMCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods Using a linear regressor, a BrainAge model was trained on healthy controls (CN) based on neuropsychological tests. The model was applied to sMCI and pMCI subjects to obtain predicted ages. The BrainAge delta, the predicted age minus the chronological age, was used as a biomarker to distinguish between sMCI and pMCI. We compared the model to one trained on neuroimaging features. Findings The AUC of the ROC curve for differentiating sMCI from pMCI was 0.91. It greatly outperforms the model trained on neuroimaging features which only obtains an AUC of 0.681. The AUC achieved is at par with the State-of-the-Art BrainAge models that use Deep Learning. The BrainAge delta was correlated with the time to conversion, the time taken for a pMCI subject to convert to AD. Interpretation We suggest that the BrainAge delta trained only with neuropsychological tests is a good biomarker to distinguish between sMCI and pMCI. This opens up the possibility to study other neurological and psychiatric disorders using this technique but with different neuropsychological tests. Funding A full list of funding bodies that supported this study can be found in the Acknowledgments section. Research in Context Evidence before this study A major application of recent neuroimaging BrainAge models has been demonstrating its value in diagnostic classification. In spite of the good performance, most models based on neuroimaging data have limitations in real data as the distribution between sites can be different from training cohorts. They can also suffer from lack of specificity to a disease, for those based on BrainAge deltas trained on healthy controls or insufficient training data, for those trained to directly identify a specific disease. We develop a BrainAge model trained on neuropsychological tests used in Alzheimer’s disease research to identify a biomarker to distinguish sMCI from pMCI subjects. We propose a model that is trained on healthy controls for which there is more data to then reliably distinguish sMCI from pMCI subjects. Added value of this study This is the first study to use a BrainAge model based on neuropsychological test features to study Alzheimer’s disease. We suggest the NeuropsychBrainAge delta, which measure the difference between the model predicted age of the subject trained on healthy controls and the chronological age of the subject, as a biomarker of Alzheimer’s Disease. The NeuropsychBrainAge delta could differentiate between sMCI and pMCI. Moreover, we also show that the proposed biomarker is correlated with the time to conversion, the time taken for a pMCI subject to convert to Alzheimer’s Disease. Implications of all the available evidence Our approach could be used for the identification of patients with mild cognitive impairment at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. The NeuropsychBrainAge delta can also be used as a quantitative marker to measure disease severity due to its correlation with time to conversion. This study shows that using healthy controls for which there is more data but using features specific to a disease such as neuropsychological test can lead to reliable BrainAge models to identify specific neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→Travaux en français237 207→