Predicting sporadic Alzheimer's disease progression via inherited Alzheimer's disease‐informed machine‐learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Developing cross-validated multi-biomarker models for the prediction of the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a critical yet unmet clinical challenge. METHODS: We applied support vector regression to AD biomarkers derived from cerebrospinal fluid, structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), amyloid-PET and fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) to predict rates of cognitive decline. Prediction models were trained in autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD, n = 121) and subsequently cross-validated in sporadic prodromal AD (n = 216). The sample size needed to detect treatment effects when using model-based risk enrichment was estimated. RESULTS: = 25%) in sporadic AD. Model-based risk-enrichment reduced the sample size required for detecting simulated intervention effects by 50%-75%. DISCUSSION: Our independently validated machine-learning model predicted cognitive decline in sporadic prodromal AD and may substantially reduce sample size needed in clinical trials in AD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".