COMPASS: A computational model to predict changes in MMSE scores 24-months after initial assessment of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present COMPASS, a COmputational Model to Predict the development of Alzheimer's diSease Spectrum, to model Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression. This was the best-performing method in recent crowdsourcing benchmark study, DREAM Alzheimer's Disease Big Data challenge to predict changes in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores over 24-months using standardized data. In the present study, we conducted three additional analyses beyond the DREAM challenge question to improve the clinical contribution of our approach, including: (1) adding pre-validated baseline cognitive composite scores of ADNI-MEM and ADNI-EF, (2) identifying subjects with significant declines in MMSE scores, and (3) incorporating SNPs of top 10 genes connected to APOE identified from functional-relationship network. For (1) above, we significantly improved predictive accuracy, especially for the Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) group. For (2), we achieved an area under ROC of 0.814 in predicting significant MMSE decline: our model has 100% precision at 5% recall, and 91% accuracy at 10% recall. For (3), "genetic only" model has Pearson's correlation of 0.15 to predict progression in the MCI group. Even though addition of this limited genetic model to COMPASS did not improve prediction of progression of MCI group, the predictive ability of SNP information extended beyond well-known APOE allele.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".