Directed Progression Brain Networks in Alzheimer's Disease: Properties and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces a new approach in brain connectomics aimed at characterizing the temporal spread in the brain of pathologies like Alzheimer's disease (AD). The main instrument is the development of "directed progression networks" (DPNets), wherein one constructs directed edges between nodes based on (weakly) inferred directions of the temporal spreading of the pathology. This stands in contrast to many previously studied brain networks where edges represent correlations, physical connections, or functional progressions. In addition, this is one of a few studies showing the value of using directed networks in the study of AD. This article focuses on the construction of DPNets for AD using longitudinal cortical thickness measurements from magnetic resonance imaging data. The network properties are then characterized, providing new insights into AD progression, as well as novel markers for differentiating normal cognition (NC) and AD at the group level. It also demonstrates the important role of nodal variations for network classification (i.e., the significance of standard deviations, not just mean values of nodal properties). Finally, the DPNets are utilized to classify subjects based on their global network measures using a variety of data-mining methodologies. In contrast to most brain networks, these DPNets do not show high clustering and small-world properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".