Personalized Computational Causal Modeling of the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mathematical models of complex diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, have the potential to play a significant role in personalized medicine. Specifically, models can be personalized by fitting parameters with individual data for the purpose of discovering primary underlying disease drivers, predicting natural history, and assessing the effects of theoretical interventions. Previous work in causal/mechanistic modeling of Alzheimer's Disease progression has modeled the disease at the cellular level and on a short time scale, such as minutes to hours. No previous studies have addressed mechanistic modeling on a personalized level using clinically validated biomarkers in individual subjects. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of personalizing a causal model of Alzheimer's Disease progression using longitudinal biomarker data. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/MEASUREMENTS: We chose the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade model, a widely-referenced hypothetical model of Alzheimer's Disease based on the amyloid cascade hypothesis, which we had previously implemented mathematically as a mechanistic model. We used available longitudinal demographic and serial biomarker data in over 800 subjects across the cognitive spectrum from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The data included participants that were cognitively normal, had mild cognitive impairment, or were diagnosed with dementia (probable Alzheimer's Disease). The model consisted of a sparse system of differential equations involving four measurable biomarkers based on cerebrospinal fluid proteins, imaging, and cognitive testing data. RESULTS: Personalization of the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade model with individual serial biomarker data yielded fourteen personalized parameters in each subject reflecting physiologically meaningful characteristics. These included growth rates, latency values, and carrying capacities of the various biomarkers, most of which demonstrated significant differences across clinical diagnostic groups. The model fits to training data across the entire cohort had a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.09 (SD 0.081) on a variable scale between zero and one, and were robust, with over 90% of subjects showing an RMSE of < 0.2. Similarly, in a subset of subjects with data on all four biomarkers in at least one test set, performance was high on the test sets, with a mean RMSE of 0.15 (SD 0.117), with 80% of subjects demonstrating an RMSE < 0.2 in the estimation of future biomarker points. Cluster analysis of parameters revealed two distinct endophenotypic groups, with distinct biomarker profiles and disease trajectories. CONCLUSION: Results support the feasibility of personalizing mechanistic models based on individual biomarker trajectories and suggest that this approach may be useful for reclassifying subjects on the Alzheimer's clinical spectrum. This computational modeling approach is not limited to the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade hypothesis, and can be applied to any mechanistic hypothesis of disease progression in the Alzheimer's field that can be monitored with biomarkers. Thus, it offers a computational platform to compare and validate various disease hypotheses, personalize individual biomarker trajectories and predict individual response to theoretical prevention and therapeutic intervention strategies.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».