An artificial neural network model for clinical score prediction in Alzheimer disease using structural neuroimaging measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The development of diagnostic and prognostic tools for Alzheimer disease is complicated by substantial clinical heterogeneity in prodromal stages. Many neuroimaging studies have focused on case–control classification and predicting conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease, but predicting scores from clinical assessments (such as the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale or the Mini Mental State Examination) using MRI data has received less attention. Predicting clinical scores can be crucial in providing a nuanced prognosis and inferring symptomatic severity. Methods: We predicted clinical scores at the individual level using a novel anatomically partitioned artificial neural network (APANN) model. The model combined input from 2 structural MRI measures relevant to the neurodegenerative patterns observed in Alzheimer disease: hippocampal segmentations and cortical thickness. We evaluated the performance of the APANN model with 10 rounds of 10-fold cross-validation in 3 experiments, using cohorts from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): ADNI1, ADNI2 and ADNI1 + 2. Results: Pearson correlation and root mean square error between the actual and predicted scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADNI1: r = 0.60; ADNI2: r = 0.68; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.63) and Mini Mental State Examination (ADNI1: r = 0.52; ADNI2: r = 0.55; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.55) showed that APANN can accurately infer clinical severity from MRI data. Limitations: To rigorously validate the model, we focused primarily on large cross-sectional baseline data sets with only proof-of-concept longitudinal results. Conclusion: The APANN provides a highly robust and scalable framework for predicting clinical severity at the individual level using high-dimensional, multimodal neuroimaging data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".