Predicting future cognitive decline from non-brain and multimodal brain imaging data in healthy and pathological aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature has focused on predicting a diagnostic label from structural brain imaging. Since subtle changes in the brain precede a cognitive decline in healthy and pathological aging, our study predicts future decline as a continuous trajectory instead. Here, we tested whether baseline multimodal neuroimaging data improve the prediction of future cognitive decline in healthy and pathological aging. Nonbrain data (demographics, clinical, and neuropsychological scores), structural MRI, and functional connectivity data from OASIS-3 (N = 662; age = 46-96 years) were entered into cross-validated multitarget random forest models to predict future cognitive decline (measured by CDR and MMSE), on average 5.8 years into the future. The analysis was preregistered, and all analysis code is publicly available. Combining non-brain with structural data improved the continuous prediction of future cognitive decline (best test-set performance: R2 = 0.42). Cognitive performance, daily functioning, and subcortical volume drove the performance of our model. Including functional connectivity did not improve predictive accuracy. In the future, the prognosis of age-related cognitive decline may enable earlier and more effective individualized cognitive, pharmacological, and behavioral interventions.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".