The relative efficiency of time‐to‐progression and continuous measures of cognition in presymptomatic Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials on preclinical Alzheimer's disease are challenging because of the slow rate of disease progression. We use a simulation study to demonstrate that models of repeated cognitive assessments detect treatment effects more efficiently than models of time to progression. METHODS: Multivariate continuous data are simulated from a Bayesian joint mixed-effects model fit to data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Simulated progression events are algorithmically derived from the continuous assessments using a random forest model fit to the same data. RESULTS: We find that power is approximately doubled with models of repeated continuous outcomes compared with the time-to-progression analysis. The simulations also demonstrate that a plausible informative missing data pattern can induce a bias that inflates treatment effects, yet 5% type I error is maintained. DISCUSSION: Given the relative inefficiency of time to progression, it should be avoided as a primary analysis approach in clinical trials of preclinical Alzheimer's disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".