A Novel Method to Estimate Long‐Term Chronological Changes From Fragmented Observations in Disease Progression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical observations of patients with chronic diseases are often restricted in terms of duration. Therefore, obtaining a quantitative and comprehensive understanding of the chronology of chronic diseases is challenging, because of the inability to precisely estimate the patient's disease stage at the time point of observation. We developed a novel method to reconstitute long-term disease progression from temporally fragmented data by extending the nonlinear mixed-effects model to incorporate the estimation of "disease time" of each subject. Application of this method to sporadic Alzheimer's disease successfully depicted disease progression over 20 years. The covariate analysis revealed earlier onset of amyloid-β accumulation in male and female apolipoprotein E ε4 homozygotes, whereas disease progression was remarkably slower in female ε3 homozygotes compared with female ε4 carriers and males. Simulation of a clinical trial suggests patient recruitment using the information of precise disease time of each patient will decrease the sample size required for clinical trials.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it