A comparison of machine learning methods for survival analysis of high-dimensional clinical data for dementia prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected from clinical trials and cohort studies, such as dementia studies, are often high-dimensional, censored, heterogeneous and contain missing information, presenting challenges to traditional statistical analysis. There is an urgent need for methods that can overcome these challenges to model this complex data. At present there is no cure for dementia and no treatment that can successfully change the course of the disease. Machine learning models that can predict the time until a patient develops dementia are important tools in helping understand dementia risks and can give more accurate results than traditional statistical methods when modelling high-dimensional, heterogeneous, clinical data. This work compares the performance and stability of ten machine learning algorithms, combined with eight feature selection methods, capable of performing survival analysis of high-dimensional, heterogeneous, clinical data. We developed models that predict survival to dementia using baseline data from two different studies. The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study (MAS) is a longitudinal cohort study of 1037 participants, aged 70-90 years, that aims to determine the effects of ageing on cognition. The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a longitudinal study aimed at identifying biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease. Using the concordance index as a measure of performance, our models achieve maximum performance values of 0.82 for MAS and 0.93 For ADNI.
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 | 0.044 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".