Characterizing heterogeneity in the progression of Alzheimer's disease using longitudinal clinical and neuroimaging biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Models characterizing intermediate disease stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are needed to inform clinical care and prognosis. Current models, however, use only a small subset of available biomarkers, capturing only coarse changes along the complete spectrum of disease progression. We propose the use of machine learning techniques and clinical, biochemical, and neuroimaging biomarkers to characterize progression to AD. Methods We used a large multimodal longitudinal data set of biomarkers and demographic and genotype information from 1624 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Using hidden Markov models, we characterized intermediate disease stages. We validated inferred disease trajectories by comparing time to first clinical AD diagnosis. We trained an L2‐regularized logistic regression model to predict disease trajectory and evaluated its discriminative performance on a test set. Results We identified 12 distinct disease states. Progression to AD occurred most often through one of two possible paths through these states. Paths differed in terms of rate of disease progression (by 5.44 years on average), amyloid and total‐tau (t‐tau) burden (by 10% and 69%, respectively), and hippocampal neurodegeneration (P < .001). On the test set, the predictive model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85. Discussion Progression to AD, in terms of biomarker trajectories, can be predicted based on participant‐specific factors. Such disease staging tools could help in targeting high‐risk patients for therapeutic intervention trials. As longitudinal data with richer features are collected, such models will help increase our understanding of the factors that drive the different trajectories of 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".