Bayesian latent time joint mixed‐effects model of progression in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction We characterize long‐term disease dynamics from cognitively healthy to dementia using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Methods We apply a latent time joint mixed‐effects model to 16 cognitive, functional, biomarker, and imaging outcomes in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used for estimation and inference. Results We find good concordance between latent time and diagnosis. Change in amyloid positron emission tomography shows a moderate correlation with change in cerebrospinal fluid tau (ρ = 0.310) and phosphorylated tau (ρ = 0.294) and weaker correlation with amyloid‐β 42 (ρ = 0.176). In comparison to amyloid positron emission tomography, change in volumetric magnetic resonance imaging summaries is more strongly correlated with cognitive measures (e.g., ρ = 0.731 for ventricles and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale). The average disease trends are consistent with the amyloid cascade hypothesis. Discussion The latent time joint mixed‐effects model can (1) uncover long‐term disease trends; (2) estimate the sequence of pathological abnormalities; and (3) provide subject‐specific prognostic estimates of the time until onset of symptoms.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".