Practical algorithms for amyloid β probability in subjective or mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Practical algorithms predicting the probability of amyloid pathology among patients with subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment may help clinical decisions regarding confirmatory biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Algorithm feature selection was conducted with Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing data. Probability algorithms were developed in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using nested cross-validation accompanied by stratified subsampling to obtain 1000 internally validated decision trees. Semi-independent validation was conducted using Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing. Independent external validation was conducted in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. RESULTS: Two algorithms were developed using age and normalized immediate recall z-scores, with or without apolipoprotein E ε4 carrier status. Both algorithms had robust performance across data sets and when substituting different recall memory tests. DISCUSSION: The statistical framework resulted in robust probability estimation. Application of these algorithms may assist in clinical decision-making for further testing to diagnose amyloid pathology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".