MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884722784 · doi:10.3233/jad-180299

MRI-Based Screening of Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease for Prevention Clinical Trials

2018· article· en· W2884722784 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adrià Casamitjana, Paula Petrone, Alan Tucholka, Carles Falcón, Stavros Skouras, José Luís Molinuevo, Verónica Vilaplana, Juan Domingo Gispert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseIntensive care medicineNeurosciencePathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of healthy individuals harboring amyloid pathology represents one important challenge for secondary prevention clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Consequently, noninvasive and cost-efficient techniques to detect preclinical AD constitute an unmet need of critical importance. In this manuscript, we apply machine learning to structural MRI (T1 and DTI) of 96 cognitively normal subjects to identify amyloid-positive ones. Models were trained on public ADNI data and validated on an independent local cohort. Used for subject classification in a simulated clinical trial setting, the proposed method is able to save 60% of unnecessary CSF/PET tests and to reduce 47% of the cost of recruitment. This recruitment strategy capitalizes on available MR scans to reduce the overall amount of invasive PET/CSF tests in prevention trials, demonstrating a potential value as a tool for preclinical AD screening. This protocol could foster the development of secondary prevention strategies for AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.345
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207