Factors influencing accuracy of cortical thickness in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is great value to use of structural neuroimaging in the assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, to date, predictive value of structural imaging tend to range between 80% and 90% in accuracy and it is unclear why this is the case given that structural imaging should parallel the pathologic processes of AD. There is a possibility that clinical misdiagnosis relative to the gold standard pathologic diagnosis and/or additional brain pathologies are confounding factors contributing to reduced structural imaging classification accuracy. We examined potential factors contributing to misclassification of individuals with clinically diagnosed AD purely from cortical thickness measures. Correctly classified and incorrectly classified groups were compared across a range of demographic, biological, and neuropsychological data including cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, amyloid imaging, white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, cognitive, and genetic factors. Individual subject analyses suggested that at least a portion of the control individuals misclassified as AD from structural imaging additionally harbor substantial AD biomarker pathology and risk, yet are relatively resistant to cognitive symptoms, likely due to "cognitive reserve," and therefore clinically unimpaired. In contrast, certain clinical control individuals misclassified as AD from cortical thickness had increased WMH volume relative to other controls in the sample, suggesting that vascular conditions may contribute to classification accuracy from cortical thickness measures. These results provide examples of factors that contribute to the accuracy of structural imaging in predicting a clinical diagnosis of AD, and provide important information about considerations for future work aimed at optimizing structural based diagnostic classifiers for 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 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".