MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2897689714 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2237

IC‐P‐170: A SIGNATURE OF BRAIN ATROPHY HIGHLY PREDICTIVE OF PROGRESSION TO ALZHEIMER'S DEMENTIA AND COGNITIVE DECLINE

2018· article· en· W2897689714 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Tam, Christian Dansereau, Yasser Iturria‐Medina, Sebastian Urchs, Pierre Orban, John C.S. Breitner, Pierre Bellec

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrophyGrey matterDementiaVoxel-based morphometryLogistic regressionBrain sizeVoxelPsychologyInternal medicineNeuroimagingMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceWhite matterRadiologyComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many works have aimed at finding biomarkers in order to predict future progression to Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, this problem is challenging given that AD is a heterogeneous disorder. We present a brain signature of grey matter atrophy shared by a subset of patients with MCI that is highly predictive of progression to AD within 3 years. We used baseline T1 scans from 1136 subjects (controls, MCI, AD) from the ADNI1 and ADNI2 cohorts to generate individual voxel-based morphometry maps with SPM. Hierarchical clustering was used to reduce the number of features by identifying 7 subgroups of subjects, within ADNI1 AD and controls, based on similarity of atrophy. We derived spatial correlations between each individual's map to the mean of each subgroup, termed subtype weights, and used these subtype weights, along with age, gender, mean grey matter volume, and total intracranial volume, as features in our support vector machine to classify controls and AD from ADNI1. Then we trained a logistic regression classifier to identify AD patients with high-confidence predictions and obtain a highly predictive signature of AD (HPS+) in ADNI1 (Figure 1). After we optimized our hyperparameters on stable and progressor MCI (sMCI and pMCI respectively) from ADNI1, we applied our model to the ADNI2 dataset to classify 1) AD vs controls and 2) sMCI vs pMCI. Seven subtypes of grey matter atrophy and their coefficients, along with sex, age, mean grey matter volume (GMV) and total intracranial volume (TIV), for the resulting model to predict AD patients with high specificity. We achieved at least 90% specificity in identifying AD and pMCI patients in each of the training and replication samples. HPS+ subjects were more likely to be progressors. HPS+ subjects also had significantly worse baseline cognition and declined at a faster rate, compared to low-confidence subjects (Non-HPS+) and subjects who were flagged as negative (Figure 2). However, HPS+ subjects did not differ in amyloid or tau burden or APOE4 positivity. Characteristics of MCI subjects with a highly predictive brain signature of progression to Alzheimer's dementia (HPS+), MCI subjects with a low-confidence prediction (Non-HPS+), and MCI subjects who were not flagged as hits (Negative) in a) ADNI1 and b) ADNI2. ADAS13: Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive. Significant differences are denoted by * for p <0.05 and ** for p< 0.001. With a new machine learning algorithm, we found an anatomical MRI brain signature that is highly predictive of future conversion to AD dementia in a subset of MCI patients. The results of this work may be developed into methods for earlier diagnosis and enrichment in clinical trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→