MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111308536 · doi:10.1002/alz.045233

Validation and replication of a prognostic machine learning model for enrichment of cognitive decliners in clinical trials

2020· article· en· W3111308536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Dansereau, César Laurent, Angela Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive declineCognitionMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNeuroimagingClinical trialNeuropsychologyCohortInternal medicineDiseasePsychologyCognitive impairmentDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Identifying individuals who will experience cognitive decline is paramount to evaluating novel treatments in Alzheimer’s clinical trials. We propose to use highly specific neuroimaging and genetic signatures that are indicative of the risk of cognitive decline in individuals with mild Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Method Baseline measurements of gray matter volumes, from structural magnetic resonance imaging, APOE4 status, age and sex were provided to a machine learning prognostic enrichment solution Cog‐Foresight from Perceiv Research Inc. Canada to identify signatures of individuals at risk of cognitive decline up to two years of follow‐up. The resulting three cohorts of individuals were: (a) low‐risk, (b) moderate‐risk, (c) high‐risk of decline according to the enrichment tool. ADAS‐cog11, CDR‐SB and MMSE were used as clinical endpoints to evaluate the trajectory of each cohort. The prognostic tool was evaluated on three independent datasets: ADNI1 (n=345), ADNI2 (n=238) [1], and the placebo arm of an 18‐month Phase 3 study in mild AD (n=110). Result From the 693 individuals selected from the three datasets, 40% were deemed low‐risk and 23% were deemed high‐risk. In ADNI1, the mean rate of change at 18 months from baseline for the CDR‐SB for the low‐, moderate‐, and high‐risk groups were 0.51 points, 1.08 points, and 1.83 points, respectively. In ADNI2, the mean rate of change at 18 months from baseline for the CDR‐SB for the low‐, moderate‐, and high‐risk groups were 0.09 points, 0.57 points, and 1.79 points, respectively. In the Phase 3 study, the mean rate of change at 18 months for the CDR‐SB for the low‐, moderate‐, and high‐risk groups were 0.5 points, 0.88 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. Similar trajectories and conclusions were found for all other endpoints. Conclusion The use of multimodal biomarkers with a machine learning‐based targeted selection was successful in identifying a sub‐cohort that will, on average, have a higher rate of decline than the rest. The proposed identification of decliners has the potential of reducing trial costs by minimizing the enrolment of cognitively stable individuals into trials. Reference: (1) The ADNI1 and ADNI2 datasets were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu).

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)0.209
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2090.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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 & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→