Identification of prognostic factors to predict cognitive decline of patients with early Alzheimer's disease in the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".