Forecasting the progression of Alzheimer's disease using neural networks and a novel preprocessing algorithm.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a 99.6% failure rate of clinical trials for drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease, likely because Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients cannot be easily identified at early stages. This study investigated machine learning approaches to use clinical data to predict the progression of AD in future years. METHODS: Data from 1737 patients were processed using the "All-Pairs" technique, a novel methodology created for this study involving the comparison of all possible pairs of temporal data points for each patient. Machine learning models were trained on these processed data and evaluated using a separate testing data set (110 patients). RESULTS: A neural network model was effective (mAUC = 0.866) at predicting the progression of AD, both in patients who were initially cognitively normal and in patients suffering from mild cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Such a model could be used to identify patients at early stages of AD and who are therefore good candidates for clinical trials for AD therapeutics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".