Beyond the average patient: how neuroimaging models can address heterogeneity in dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is a highly heterogeneous condition, with pronounced individual differences in age of onset, clinical presentation, progression rates and neuropathological hallmarks, even within a specific diagnostic group. However, the most common statistical designs used in dementia research studies and clinical trials overlook this heterogeneity, instead relying on comparisons of group average differences (e.g. patient versus control or treatment versus placebo), implicitly assuming within-group homogeneity. This one-size-fits-all approach potentially limits our understanding of dementia aetiology, hindering the identification of effective treatments. Neuroimaging has enabled the characterization of the average neuroanatomical substrates of dementias; however, the increasing availability of large open neuroimaging datasets provides the opportunity to examine patterns of neuroanatomical variability in individual patients. In this update, we outline the causes and consequences of heterogeneity in dementia and discuss recent research that aims to tackle heterogeneity directly, rather than assuming that dementia affects everyone in the same way. We introduce spatial normative modelling as an emerging data-driven technique, which can be applied to dementia data to model neuroanatomical variation, capturing individualized neurobiological 'fingerprints'. Such methods have the potential to detect clinically relevant subtypes, track an individual's disease progression or evaluate treatment responses, with the goal of moving towards precision medicine for dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".