Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) is commonly used to assess cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease patients and is included in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset. We divided 741 ADNI participants with blood microarray data into three groups based on their most recent CDR assessment: cognitive normal (CDR = 0), mild cognitive impairment (CDR = 0.5), and probable Alzheimer’s disease (CDR ≥ 1.0). We then used machine learning to predict cognitive status using only blood RNA levels. Only one probe for chloride intracellular channel 1 (CLIC1) was significant after correction. However, by combining individually nonsignificant probes with p-values less than 0.1, we averaged 87.87% (s = 1.02) predictive accuracy for classifying the three groups, compared to a 55.46% baseline for this study due to unequal group sizes. The best model had an overall precision of 0.902, recall of 0.895, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area of 0.904. Although we identified one significant probe in CLIC1, CLIC1 levels alone were not sufficient to predict dementia status and cannot be used alone in a clinical setting. Additional analyses combining individually suggestive, but nonsignificant, blood RNA levels were significantly predictive and may improve diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer’s disease. Therefore, we propose that patient features that do not individually predict cognitive status might still contribute to overall cognitive decline through interactions that can be elucidated through machine learning.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".