MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098241802 · doi:10.1111/rssc.12449

Functional Ensemble Survival Tree: Dynamic Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Progression Accommodating Multiple Time-Varying Covariates

2020· article· en· W3098241802 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Jiang, Yijun Xie, Graham A. Colditz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFoundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital
KeywordsCovariateComputer scienceBaseline (sea)NeurocognitiveMultivariate statisticsTree (set theory)BiomarkerMachine learningArtificial intelligenceData miningCognitionMedicineMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the exponential growth in data collection, multiple time-varying biomarkers are commonly encountered in clinical studies, along with a rich set of baseline covariates. This paper is motivated by addressing a critical issue in the field of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in which we aim to predict the time for AD conversion in people with mild cognitive impairment to inform prevention and early treatment decisions. Conventional joint models of biomarker trajectory with time-to-event data rely heavily on model assumptions and may not be applicable when the number of covariates is large. This motivated us to consider a functional ensemble survival tree framework to characterize the joint effects of both functional and baseline covariates in predicting disease progression. The proposed framework incorporates multivariate functional principal component analysis to characterize the changing patterns of multiple time-varying neurocognitive biomarker trajectories and then nest these features within an ensemble survival tree in predicting the progression of AD. We provide a fast implementation of the algorithm that accommodates personalized dynamic prediction that can be updated as new observations are gathered to reflect the patient’s latest prognosis. The algorithm is empirically shown to perform well in simulation studies and is illustrated through the analysis of data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (http://adni.loni.usc.edu/). We provide implementation of our proposed method in an R package funest.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207