MRI-based brain atrophy rates in ADNI phase 2: acceleration and enrichment considerations for clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this work was to assess statistical power to detect treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived brain biomarkers. We used unbiased tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to analyze n = 5,738 scans, from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 participants scanned with both accelerated and nonaccelerated T1-weighted MRI at 3T. The study cohort included 198 healthy controls, 111 participants with significant memory complaint, 182 with early mild cognitive impairment (EMCI) and 177 late mild cognitive impairment (LMCI), and 155 AD patients, scanned at screening and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The statistical power to track brain change in TBM-based imaging biomarkers depends on the interscan interval, disease stage, and methods used to extract numerical summaries. To achieve reasonable sample size estimates for potential clinical trials, the minimal scan interval was 6 months for LMCI and AD and 12 months for EMCI. TBM-based imaging biomarkers were not sensitive to MRI scan acceleration, which gave results comparable with nonaccelerated sequences. ApoE status and baseline amyloid-beta positron emission tomography data improved statistical power. Among healthy, EMCI, and LMCI participants, sample size requirements were significantly lower in the amyloid+/ApoE4+ group than for the amyloid-/ApoE4- group. ApoE4 strongly predicted atrophy rates across brain regions most affected by AD, but the remaining 9 of the top 10 AD risk genes offered no added predictive value in this cohort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".