Challenges associated with biomarker‐based classification systems for Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the consistency of the A/T/N classification system. METHODS: We included healthy controls, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia patients from Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We assessed subject classification consistency with different biomarker combinations and the agreement and correlation between biomarkers. RESULTS: Subject classification discordance ranged from 12.2% to 44.5% in the whole sample; 17.3%-46.4% in healthy controls; 11.9%-46.5% in mild cognitive impairment, and 1%-35.7% in dementia patients. Amyloid, but not neurodegeneration biomarkers, showed good agreement both in the whole sample and in the clinical subgroups. Amyloid biomarkers were correlated in the whole sample, but not along the Alzheimer's disease continuum (as defined by a positive amyloid positron emission tomography). Neurodegeneration biomarkers were poorly correlated both in the whole sample and along the Alzheimer's disease continuum. The relationship between biomarkers was stage-dependent. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the current A/T/N classification system does not achieve the required consistency to be used in the clinical setting.
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 | 0.132 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".