A similarity-based approach to leverage multi-cohort medical data on the diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Heterogeneous diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) manifest a variety of phenotypes among populations. Early diagnosis and effective treatment offer cost benefits. Many studies on biochemical and imaging markers have shown potential promise in improving diagnosis, yet establishing quantitative diagnostic criteria for ancillary tests remains challenging. Results: We have developed a similarity-based approach that matches individuals to subjects with similar conditions. We modeled the disease with a Gaussian process, and tested the method in the Alzheimer's Disease Big Data DREAM Challenge. Ranked the highest among submitted methods, our diagnostic model predicted cognitive impairment scores in an independent dataset test with a correlation score of 0.573. It differentiated AD patients from control subjects with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.920. Without knowing longitudinal information about subjects, the model predicted patients who are vulnerable to conversion from mild-cognitive impairment to AD through the similarity network. This diagnostic framework can be applied to other diseases with clinical heterogeneity, such as Parkinson's disease.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".