Survival Analysis in Cognitively Normal Subjects and in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment Using a Proportional Hazards Model with Extreme Gradient Boosting Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in cognitively normal (CN) and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is extremely important. While MCI-to-AD progression risk has been studied extensively, few studies estimate CN-to-MCI conversion risk. The Cox proportional hazards (PH), a widely used survival analysis model, assumes a linear predictor-risk relationship. Generalizing the PH model to more complex predictor-risk relationships may increase risk estimation accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a PH model using an Xgboost regressor, based on demographic, genetic, neuropsychiatric, and neuroimaging predictors to estimate risk of AD in patients with MCI, and the risk of MCI in CN subjects. METHODS: We replaced the Cox PH linear model with an Xgboost regressor to capture complex interactions between predictors, and non-linear predictor-risk associations. We endeavored to limit model inputs to noninvasive and more widely available predictors in order to facilitate future applicability in a wider setting. RESULTS: In MCI-to-AD (n = 882), the Xgboost model achieved a concordance index (C-index) of 84.5%. When the model was used for MCI risk prediction in CN (n = 100) individuals, the C-index was 73.3%. In both applications, the C-index was statistically significantly higher in the Xgboost in comparison to the Cox PH model. CONCLUSION: Using non-linear regressors such as Xgboost improves AD dementia risk assessment in CN and MCI. It is possible to achieve reasonable risk stratification using predictors that are relatively low-cost in terms of time, invasiveness, and availability. Future strategies for improving AD dementia risk estimation are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".