Predicting Alzheimer’s disease progression using deep recurrent neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Early identification of individuals at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia is important for developing disease-modifying therapies. In this study, given multimodal AD markers and clinical diagnosis of an individual from one or more timepoints, we seek to predict the clinical diagnosis, cognition and ventricular volume of the individual for every month (indefinitely) into the future. We proposed and applied a minimal recurrent neural network (minimalRNN) model to data from The Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution (TADPOLE) challenge, comprising longitudinal data of 1677 participants (Marinescu et al. 2018) from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We compared the performance of the minimalRNN model and four baseline algorithms up to 6 years into the future. Most previous work on predicting AD progression ignore the issue of missing data, which is a prevalent issue in longitudinal data. Here, we explored three different strategies to handle missing data. Two of the strategies treated the missing data as a “preprocessing” issue, by imputing the missing data using the previous timepoint (“forward filling”) or linear interpolation (“linear filling). The third strategy utilized the minimalRNN model itself to fill in the missing data both during training and testing (“model filling”). Our analyses suggest that the minimalRNN with “model filling” compared favorably with baseline algorithms, including support vector machine/regression, linear state space (LSS) model, and long short-term memory (LSTM) model. Importantly, although the training procedure utilized longitudinal data, we found that the trained minimalRNN model exhibited similar performance, when using only 1 input timepoint or 4 input timepoints, suggesting that our approach might work well with just cross-sectional data. An earlier version of our approach was ranked 5th (out of 53 entries) in the TADPOLE challenge in 2019. The current approach is ranked 2nd out of 63 entries as of June 3rd, 2020.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".