Screening and predicting progression from high-risk mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are clinically heterogeneous, with different risks of progression to Alzheimer's disease. Regular follow-up and examination may be time-consuming and costly, especially for MRI and PET. Therefore, it is necessary to identify a more precise MRI population. In this study, a two-stage screening frame was proposed for evaluating the predictive utility of additional MRI measurements among high-risk MCI subjects. In the first stage, the K-means cluster was performed for trajectory-template based on two clinical assessments. In the second stage, high-risk individuals were filtered out and imputed into prognosis models with varying strategies. As a result, the ADAS-13 was more sensitive for filtering out high-risk individuals among patients with MCI. The optimal model included a change rate of clinical assessments and three neuroimaging measurements and was significantly associated with a net reclassification improvement (NRI) of 0.246 (95% CI 0.021, 0.848) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) of 0.090 (95% CI - 0.062, 0.170). The ADAS-13 longitudinal models had the best discrimination performance (Optimism-corrected concordance index = 0.830), as validated by the bootstrap method. Considering the limited medical and financial resources, our findings recommend follow-up MRI examination 1 year after identification for high-risk individuals, while regular clinical assessments for low-risk individuals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".