MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110826864 · doi:10.1002/alz.040000

Investigating predictive models for earlier diagnosis of cognitive impairment using multimodal eye biomarkers

2020· article· en· W3110826864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Delia Cabrera DeBuc, Edmund Arthur, William J. Feuer, Patrice J. Persad, Gábor Márk Somfai, Maja Kostic, Susel Oropesa, Carlos E. Mendoza‐Santiesteban

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionStatisticsYouden's J statisticPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The purpose of this study is to investigate predictive models for earlier diagnosis of cognitive impairment (CI) using the eye. Method Prospective age‐matched subjects (n = 69, 55+ years) w/o CI and the presence of any ophthalmic history were recruited. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, retinal images (EasyScan, iOptics) and full‐field electroretinogram (RETevalTM, LKC Technologies, Inc.) were obtained. The multifractal behavior in the skeletonized optic‐disc region was analyzed using the generalized dimensions (D0, D1 & D2) and singularity spectrum f(α) vs. α, both calculated with the ImageJ program. The lacunarity (Λ) was also calculated by measuring the gap dispersion inside each retinal image. Logistic regression was used to construct predictive models to discriminate between phenotypes obtained from individuals w/o CI. Independent variables were divided into sets (see Table 1). Then, five hierarchical set models were fitted with all independent variables forced in. For each model, predicted probabilities were used to construct Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. In a separate analysis, all independent variables were allowed inclusion in a parsimonious forward stepwise fashion, and a ROC curve was also constructed with its model‐predicted probabilities. Efficacy of discrimination was summarized with the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and Youden’s index. Result Of the 69 participants, 32 had CI (46%). Figures 1 and Table 1 shows that the overall predictive accuracy of the model 5 in discriminating patients with CI from cognitive healthy subjects may be better (AUROC∼0.95) than that of the other combined measurements AUROC range∼[0.73 ‐ 0.88]. In the separated analysis with all independent variables, the singularity exponent a2 was the most significant predictor of CI. Once this was accounted for, none of the other parameters was statistically significant except Flicker IT. Therefore, a2 and Flicker IT were included in a single model to obtain a powerful predictive index: Xlinear = 18.387 + (0.736) × (Flicker IT)‐(26.887) x (a2) being the Predictive probability of CI = expXlinear/(1+expXlinear). The AUROC for this predictive model was 0.897 (SE = 0.050) and was highly significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion Our results showed that the predictive model using multimodal eye biomarkers has potential to target cognitive screening toward individuals at increased risk of CI.

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)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207