MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965823844 · doi:10.1016/j.trci.2019.06.004

Identification of prognostic factors to predict cognitive decline of patients with early Alzheimer's disease in the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study

2019· article· en· W2965823844 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takuya Yagi, Michio Kanekiyo, Jun‐ichi Ito, Ryoko Ihara, Kazushi Suzuki, Atsushi Iwata, Takeshi Iwatsubo, Ken Aoshima

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenentechNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeGE HealthcareAlzheimer's AssociationFujirebio USPfizerBioClinicaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbRocheMerckAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyAbbVieNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsClinical Dementia RatingInternal medicinePopulationDementiaNeuroimagingPsychologyNeuropsychologyCohortCognitive declineOncologyMini–Mental State ExaminationAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMedicineDiseasePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the factors including neuropsychological test performances and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers which can predict disease progression of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a Japanese population. METHODS: The group classification on early AD population in both Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI) and North American ADNI (NA-ADNI) was performed using the inclusion criteria including brain amyloid positivity on positron emission tomography or CSF. Participants with early AD from each cohort were stratified into two groups based on a cutoff 1.0 of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) change at month 24 (m24): participants in "progress group" have CDR-SB change ≥ 1.0 and participants in "stable group" have CDR-SB change < 1.0. Then, we performed identification of prognostic factors from baseline items including neuropsychological scores (Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale[ADAS-cog 13], Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), CDR, FAQ, and Geriatric Depression Scale ), CSF markers (t-tau, p-tau, and beta-amyloid 1-42), vital signs (body weight, pulse rate, etc.,), by using two statistical approaches, Welch's t-test and simple linear regression by ordinary least squares. Comparisons between participants with J-ADNI and participants with NA-ADNI were also performed. RESULTS: Trends of CDR-SB changes were very similar between J-ADNI and NA-ADNI early AD population enrolled in this study. Baseline levels of CSF t-tau, p-tau, Mini-Mental State Examination, FAQ, and ADAS-cog13 were identified as prognostic factors in both J-ADNI and NA-ADNI. Based on a detailed subscale analysis on ADAS-cog13, four subscales (Q1: word recall, Q3: construction, Q4: delayed word recall, and Q8: word recognition) were identified as prognostic factors in both J-ADNI and NA-ADNI. DISCUSSION: Characterizing population with early AD can provide benefits for promoting efficiency in conducting AD clinical trials for disease-modifying treatments. Thus, implementing these prognostic factors into clinical trials may be potentially a good method to enrich participants with early AD who are suitable for evaluating treatment effects.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical InterventionsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207