A prognostic model of Alzheimer's disease relying on multiple longitudinal measures and time‐to‐event data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Characterizing progression in Alzheimer's disease is critically important for early detection and targeted treatment. The objective was to develop a prognostic model, based on multivariate longitudinal markers, for predicting progression-free survival in patients with mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: The information contained in multiple longitudinal markers was extracted using multivariate functional principal components analysis and used as predictors in the Cox regression models. Cross-validation was used for selecting the best model based on Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-1. External validation was conducted on Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-2. RESULTS: Model comparison yielded a prognostic index computed as the weighted combination of historical information of five neurocognitive longitudinal markers that are routinely collected in observational studies. The comprehensive validity analysis provided solid evidence of the usefulness of the model for predicting Alzheimer's disease progression. DISCUSSION: The prognostic model was improved by incorporating multiple longitudinal markers. It is useful for monitoring disease and identifying patients for clinical trial recruitment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".