Multiple Cost Optimisation for Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current machine learning techniques for dementia diagnosis often do not take into account real-world practical constraints, which may include, for example, the cost of diagnostic assessment time and financial budgets. In this work, we built on previous cost-sensitive feature selection approaches by generalising to multiple cost types, while taking into consideration that stakeholders attempting to optimise the dementia care pathway might face multiple non-fungible budget constraints. Our new optimisation algorithm involved the searching of cost-weighting hyperparameters while constrained by total budgets. We then provided a proof of concept using both assessment time cost and financial budget cost. We showed that budget constraints could control the feature selection process in an intuitive and practical manner, while adjusting the hyperparameter increased the range of solutions selected by feature selection. We further showed that our budget-constrained cost optimisation framework could be implemented in a user-friendly graphical user interface sandbox tool to encourage non-technical users and stakeholders to adopt and to further explore and audit the model - a humans-in-the-loop approach. Overall, we suggest that setting budget constraints initially and then fine tuning the cost-weighting hyperparameters can be an effective way to perform feature selection where multiple cost constraints exist, which will in turn lead to more realistic optimising and redesigning of dementia diagnostic assessments. Clinical Relevance By optimising diagnostic accuracy against various costs (e.g. assessment administration time and financial budget), predictive yet practical dementia diagnostic assessments can be redesigned to suit clinical use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".