A similarity-based approach to leverage multi-cohort medical data on the diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it