MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210636091 · doi:10.1002/alz.054217

Automatic prediction of cognitive and functional decline using baseline MRI and cognitive scores

2021· article· en· W4210636091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neda Shafiee, Mahsa Dadar, Simon Ducharme, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeClinical Dementia RatingDementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentNeuroimagingCognitionEntorhinal cortexCognitive declineAudiologyPsychologyAtrophyCognitive impairmentInternal medicineMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseNeuroscienceHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients in the early stages of AD dementia experience decline in their cognitive abilities at different rates. Accurately predicting the progression rate would enable the enrichment of patient populations in clinical trials. Using the early AD‐related pattern of atrophy and cognitive scores from a baseline visit, we trained a model to predict cognitive and functional decline in early stages of AD. Method Data included 312 patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset and were chosen based on amyloid positivity, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR=0.5) and the Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE, range 24‐30) scores. SNIPE (Scoring by Nonlocal Image Patch Estimator) was used to measure AD‐related atrophy patterns in the hippocampi (HC) and entorhinal cortex (EC) (Coupé et al. 2019). A balanced random forest was used to train models with feature sets including MR‐based z‐scored features (SNIPE scores for HC and EC), and cognitive test scores (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS‐13), MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and MMSE) from baseline data. Classifiers were trained using different combinations of features plus age. The classification performance was evaluated based on the measured sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to predict future functional and cognitive decline (defined as a 2‐point change in CSD‐SB). Result Table 1 shows the classification performance of all trained models for two and three year follow up periods. Using hippocampal grading scores in addition to MoCA, ADAS‐13 and MMSE, yields the highest accuracy (76.9%) in predicting cognitive decline at 2 years. Figure 1 shows the ROC curve for two models: One consisting of all cognitive features and the other using both cognitive and MRI features. Comparing results between the classifier using only the baseline cognitive score and the corresponding classifier with the added MRI features showed that for both follow‐up periods, the accuracy of prediction is increased when adding MRI features. Conclusion Microscopic changes due to AD pathology that occur in the HC and EC can be used as a feature in a predict the cognitive decline and increase the accuracy of prediction, even at the early stages of the AD trajectory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→