MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996702412 · doi:10.1101/2019.12.13.19014860

Disease progression modeling in Alzheimer’s disease: insights from the shape of cognitive decline

2019· preprint· en· W2996702412 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lars Lau Rakêt

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsCognitionCognitive declineDementiaDiseasePsychologyTimelineEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive testAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The characterizing symptom of Alzheimer disease (AD) is cognitive deterioration. While much recent work has focused on defining AD as a biological construct, most patients are still diagnosed, staged, and treated based on their cognitive symptoms. But the cognitive capability of a patient at any time throughout this deterioration will not directly reflect the disease state, but rather the effect of the cognitive decline on the patient’s predisease cognitive capability. Patients with high predisease cognitive capabilities tend to score better on cognitive tests relative to patients with low predisease cognitive capabilities at the same disease stage. Thus, a single assessment with a cognitive test is not adequate for determining the stage of an AD patient. Methods and Findings I developed a joint statistical model that explicitly modeled disease stage, baseline cognition, and the patients’ individual changes in cognitive ability as latent variables. The developed model takes the form of a nonlinear mixed-effects model. Maximum-likelihood estimation in this model induces a data-driven criterion for separating disease progression and baseline cognition. Applied to data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, the model estimated a timeline of cognitive decline in AD that spans approximately 15 years from the earliest subjective cognitive deficits to severe AD dementia. It was demonstrated how direct modeling of latent factors that modify the observed data patterns provide a scaffold for understanding disease progression, biomarkers and treatment effects along the continuous time progression of disease. Conclusions The suggested framework enables direct interpretations of factors that modify cognitive decline. The results give new insights to the value of biomarkers for staging patients and suggest alternative explanations for previous findings related to accelerated cognitive decline among highly educated patients and patients on symptomatic treatments.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→