Integrating expert knowledge for dementia risk prediction in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no broadly accepted dementia risk score for use in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), partly because there are few large datasets available for model development. When evidence is limited, the knowledge and experience of experts becomes more crucial for risk stratification and providing MCI patients with prognosis. Structured expert elicitation (SEE) includes formal methods to quantify experts' beliefs and help experts to express their beliefs in a quantitative form, reducing biases in the process. This study proposes to (1) assess experts' beliefs about important predictors for 3-year dementia risk in persons with MCI through SEE methodology and (2) to integrate expert knowledge and patient data to derive dementia risk scores in persons with MCI using a Bayesian approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will use a combination of SEE methodology, prospectively collected clinical data, and statistical modelling to derive a dementia risk score in persons with MCI . Clinical expert knowledge will be quantified using SEE methodology that involves the selection and training of the experts, administration of questionnaire for eliciting expert knowledge, discussion meetings and results aggregation. Patient data from the Prospective Registry for Persons with Memory Symptoms of the Cognitive Neurosciences Clinic at the University of Calgary; the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative; and the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's Uniform Data Set will be used for model training and validation. Bayesian Cox models will be used to incorporate patient data and elicited data to predict 3-year dementia risk. DISCUSSION: This study will develop a robust dementia risk score that incorporates clinician expert knowledge with patient data for accurate risk stratification, prognosis and management of 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 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 | 0.077 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.012 |
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".