Quantitative longitudinal predictions of Alzheimer's disease by multi-modal predictive learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Quantitatively predicting the progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in an individual on a continuous scale, such as AD assessment scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) scores, is informative for a personalized approach as opposed to qualitatively classifying the individual into a broad disease category. We hypothesize that multi-modal data and predictive learning models can be employed for longitudinally predicting ADAS-cog scores. Methods: Multivariate regression techniques were employed to model baseline multi-modal data (demographics, neuroimaging, and cerebrospinal fluid based markers, and genetic factors) and future ADAS-cog scores. Prediction models were subjected to repeated cross-validation and the resulting mean absolute error and cross-validated correlation of the model assessed. Results: Prediction models on multi-modal data outperformed single modal data up to 36 months. Incorporating baseline ADAS-cog scores to prediction models marginally improved predictive performance. Conclusions: Future ADAS-cog scores were successfully estimated via predictive learning aiding clinicians in identifying those at greater risk of decline and apply interventions at an earlier disease stage and inform likely future disease progression in individuals enrolled in AD clinical trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".