Prediction of Conversion to Alzheimer’s Disease with Longitudinal Measures and Time-To-Event Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying predictors of conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critically important for AD prevention and targeted treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare various clinical and biomarker trajectories for tracking progression and predicting conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to probable AD. METHODS: Participants were from the ADNI-1 study. We assessed the ability of 33 longitudinal biomarkers to predict time to AD conversion, accounting for demographic and genetic factors. We used joint modelling of longitudinal and survival data to examine the association between changes of measures and disease progression. We also employed time-dependent receiver operating characteristic method to assess the discriminating capability of the measures. RESULTS: 23 of 33 longitudinal clinical and imaging measures are significant predictors of AD conversion beyond demographic and genetic factors. The strong phenotypic and biological predictors are in the cognitive domain (ADAS-Cog; RAVLT), functional domain (FAQ), and neuroimaging domain (middle temporal gyrus and hippocampal volume). The strongest predictor is ADAS-Cog 13 with an increase of one SD in ADAS-Cog 13 increased the risk of AD conversion by 2.92 times. CONCLUSION: Prediction of AD conversion can be improved by incorporating longitudinal change information, in addition to baseline characteristics. Cognitive measures are consistently significant and generally stronger predictors than imaging measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".