MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Progression along data-driven disease timelines is predictive of Alzheimer’s disease in a population-based cohort

2021· article· en· W3168597706 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vikram Venkatraghavan, Elisabeth J. Vinke, Esther E. Bron, Wiro J. Niessen, M. Arfan Ikram, Stefan Klein, Meike W. Vernooij

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingFujirebio EuropeHorizon 2020Northern California Institute for Research and EducationEuropean Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeGE HealthcareJohnson and JohnsonNational Institutes of HealthErasmus Medisch CentrumGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SMinisterie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en WetenschapMerckH2020 European Research CouncilMinisterie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en SportErasmus Universiteit RotterdamZonMwU.S. Department of DefenseEuropean CommissionUniversity of Southern CaliforniaNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHartstichting
KeywordsTimelineCohortDiseasePopulationMedicineRotterdam StudyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelOncologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven disease progression models have provided important insight into the timeline of brain changes in AD phenotypes. However, their utility in predicting the progression of pre-symptomatic AD in a population-based setting has not yet been investigated. In this study, we investigated if the disease timelines constructed in a case-controlled setting, with subjects stratified according to APOE status, are generalizable to a population-based cohort, and if progression along these disease timelines is predictive of AD. Seven volumetric biomarkers derived from structural MRI were considered. We estimated APOE-specific disease timelines of changes in these biomarkers using a recently proposed method called co-initialized discriminative event-based modeling (co-init DEBM). This method can also estimate a disease stage for new subjects by calculating their position along the disease timelines. The model was trained and cross-validated on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, and tested on the population-based Rotterdam Study (RS) cohort. We compared the diagnostic and prognostic value of the disease stage in the two cohorts. Furthermore, we investigated if the rate of change of disease stage in RS participants with longitudinal MRI data was predictive of AD. In ADNI, the estimated disease timeslines for ϵ4 non-carriers and carriers were found to be significantly different from one another (p<0.001). The estimate disease stage along the respective timelines distinguished AD subjects from controls with an AUC of 0.83 in both APOEϵ4 non-carriers and carriers. In the RS cohort, we obtained an AUC of 0.83 and 0.85 in ϵ4 non-carriers and carriers, respectively. Progression along the disease timelines as estimated by the rate of change of disease stage showed a significant difference (p<0.005) for subjects with pre-symptomatic AD as compared to the general aging population in RS. It distinguished pre-symptomatic AD subjects with an AUC of 0.81 in APOEϵ4 non-carriers and 0.88 in carriers, which was better than any individual volumetric biomarker, or its rate of change, could achieve. Our results suggest that co-init DEBM trained on case-controlled data is generalizable to a population-based cohort setting and that progression along the disease timelines is predictive of the development of AD in the general population. We expect that this approach can help to identify at-risk individuals from the general population for targeted clinical trials as well as to provide biomarker based objective assessment in such 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 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)0.007
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→