Random forest model for feature-based Alzheimer’s disease conversion prediction from early mild cognitive impairment subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) conversion prediction from the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage has been a difficult challenge. This study focuses on providing an individualized MCI to AD conversion prediction using a balanced random forest model that leverages clinical data. In order to do this, 383 Early Mild Cognitive Impairment (EMCI) patients were gathered from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Of these patients, 49 would eventually convert to AD (EMCI_C), whereas the remaining 335 did not convert (EMCI_NC). All of these patients were split into training and testing data sets with 95 patients reserved for testing. Nine clinical features were selected, comprised of a mix of demographic, brain volume, and cognitive testing variables. Oversampling was then performed in order to balance the initially imbalanced classes. Our results showed that a random forest model was effective (93.6% accuracy) at predicting the conversion of EMCI patients to AD based on these clinical features. Additionally, we assessed the importance of each clinical feature at both the individual and model level for interpretation of the prediction itself. Our model could impact the clinical environment as a tool to predict the conversion to AD from a prodromal stage or to identify ideal candidates for clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".