Application of Digital Cognitive Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Identifying Cognitive Process Changes and Impending Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials have faced significant challenges to enroll pre-symptomatic or early stage AD subjects with biomarker positivity, minimal or no cognitive impairment, and likelihood to decline cognitively during a short trial period. Our previous study showed that digital cognitive biomarkers (DCB), generated by a hierarchical Bayesian cognitive process (HBCP) model, were able to distinguish groups of cognitively normal individuals with impending cognitive decline from those without. We generated DCBs using only baseline Auditory Verbal Learning Test's wordlist memory (WLM) item response data from the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer's Disease Patient Registry. OBJECTIVES: To replicate our previous findings, using baseline ADAS-Cog WLM item response data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, and compare DCBs to traditional approaches for scoring word-list memory tests. DESIGN: Classified decliner subjects (n = 61) as those who developed amnestic MCI or AD dementia within 3 years of normal baseline assessment and non-decliner (n = 442) as those who did not. MEASURES: Evaluated the relative value of DCBs compared to traditional measures, using three analytic approaches to group differences: 1) logistic regression of summary scores per ADAS-Cog WLM task; 2) Bayesian modeling of summary scores; and 3) HBCP modeling to generate DCBs from item-level responses. RESULTS: The HBCP model produced posterior distributions of group differences, of which Bayes factor assessment identified three DCBs with notable group differences: Immediate Retrieval from Durable Storage, (BFds = 11.8, strong evidence); One-Shot Learning, (BFds = 4.5, moderate evidence); and Partial Learning (BFds = 2.9, weak evidence). In contrast, logistic regression of summary scores did not significantly discriminate between groups, and the Bayes factor assessment of modeled summary scores provided moderate evidence that the groups were equivalent (BFsd = 3.4, 3.1, 2.9, and 1.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated DCBs' ability to distinguish , at baseline, between impending cognitive decline and non-decline groups where individuals in both groups were classified as cognitively normal. This validated findings from our previous study, demonstrating DCBs' advantages over traditional approaches. This study warrants further refinement of the HBCP DCBs to predict impending cognitive decline in individuals and other factors associated with AD, such as physical biomarker load.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".