Automatic Prediction of Cognitive and Functional Decline Can Significantly Decrease the Number of Subjects Required for Clinical Trials in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While both cognitive and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data has been used to predict progression in Alzheimer's disease, heterogeneity between patients makes it challenging to predict the rate of cognitive and functional decline for individual subjects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate prognostic power of MRI-based biomarkers of medial temporal lobe atrophy and macroscopic tissue change to predict cognitive decline in individual patients in clinical trials of early Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Data used in this study included 312 patients with mild cognitive impairment from the ADNI dataset with baseline MRI, cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β, cognitive test scores, and a minimum of two-year follow-up information available. We built a prognostic model using baseline cognitive scores and MRI-based features to determine which subjects remain stable and which functionally decline over 2 and 3-year follow-up periods. RESULTS: Combining both sets of features yields 77%accuracy (81%sensitivity and 75%specificity) to predict cognitive decline at 2 years (74%accuracy at 3 years with 75%sensitivity and 73%specificity). When used to select trial participants, this tool yields a 3.8-fold decrease in the required sample size for a 2-year study (2.8-fold decrease for a 3-year study) for a hypothesized 25%treatment effect to reduce cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: When used in clinical trials for cohort enrichment, this tool could accelerate development of new treatments by significantly increasing statistical power to detect differences in cognitive decline between arms. In addition, detection of future decline can help clinicians improve patient management strategies that will slow or delay symptom progression.
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 | 0.050 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".