Alzheimer's disease severity, objectively determined and measured
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With expansion of clinical trials to individuals across the spectrum of Alzheimer disease (AD) from preclinical to symptomatic phases, it is increasingly important to quantify AD severity using methods that capture underlying pathophysiology. METHODS: We derived an AD severity measure based on biomarkers from brain imaging, neuropathology, and cognitive testing using latent variable modeling. We used data from ADNI-1 (N = 822) and applied findings to BIOCARD study (N = 349). We evaluated criterion validity for distinguishing diagnostic groups and construct validity by evaluating rates of change in AD severity. RESULTS: The AD severity factor cross-sectionally distinguishes cognitively normal participants from MCI (AUC = 0.87) and AD dementia (AUC = 0.94). Among ADNI MCI subjects, worsening scores predict faster progression to AD dementia (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.22). In ADNI and BIOCARD, the pace of change in AD severity is steepest among progressors, with persisting differences by baseline diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Our content-valid latent variable measurement model is a reasonable approach for grading AD severity across a broad spectrum beginning at preclinical stages of AD.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".