Predicting Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Ordinal Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel approach to predicting disease progression in Alzheimer's disease (AD)--multivariate ordinal regression--which inherently models the ordered nature of brain atrophy spanning normal aging (CTL) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD. Ordinal regression provides probabilistic class predictions as well as a continuous index of disease progression--the ORCHID (Ordinal Regression Characteristic Index of Dementia) score. We applied ordinal regression to 1023 baseline structural MRI scans from two studies: the US-based Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and the European based AddNeuroMed program. Here, the acquired AddNeuroMed dataset was used as a completely independent test set for the ordinal regression model trained on the ADNI cohort providing an optimal assessment of model generalizability. Distinguishing CTL-like (CTL and stable MCI) from AD-like (MCI converters and AD) resulted in balanced accuracies of 82% (cross-validation) for ADNI and 79% (independent test set) for AddNeuroMed. For prediction of conversion from MCI to AD, balanced accuracies of 70% (AUC of 0.75) and 75% (AUC of 0.81) were achieved. The ORCHID score was computed for all subjects. We showed that this measure significantly correlated with MMSE at 12 months (ρ = -0.64, ADNI and ρ = -0.59, AddNeuroMed). Additionally, the ORCHID score can help fractionate subjects with unstable diagnoses (e.g. reverters and healthy controls who later progressed to MCI), moderately late converters (12-24 months) and late converters (24-36 months). A comparison with results in the literature and direct comparison with a binary classifier suggests that the performance of this framework is highly competitive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".