MRI and cognitive scores complement each other to accurately predict Alzheimer’s dementia 2 to 7 years before clinical onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Predicting cognitive decline and the eventual onset of dementia in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is of high value for patient management and potential cohort enrichment in pharmaceutical trials. We used cognitive scores and MRI biomarkers from a single baseline visit to predict the onset of dementia in an MCI population over a nine-year follow-up period. Method All MCI subjects from ADNI1, ADNI2, and ADNI-GO with available baseline cognitive scores and T1w MRI were included in the study (n=756). We built a Naïve Bayes classifier for every year over a 9-year follow-up period and tested each one with Leave one out cross validation. Results We reached 87% prediction accuracy at five years follow-up with an AUC>0.85 from two to seven years (peaking at 0.92 at five years). Both cognitive test scores and MR biomarkers were needed to make the prognostic models highly sensitive and specific, especially for longer follow-ups. MRI features are more sensitive, while cognitive features bring specificity to the prediction. Conclusion Combining cognitive scores and MR biomarkers yield accurate prediction years before onset of dementia. Such a tool may be helpful in selecting patients that would most benefit from lifestyle changes, and eventually early treatments that would slow cognitive decline and delay the onset of dementia.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".