A robust framework to investigate the reliability and stability of explainable artificial intelligence markers of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical practice, several standardized neuropsychological tests have been designed to assess and monitor the neurocognitive status of patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. Important research efforts have been devoted so far to the development of multivariate machine learning models that combine the different test indexes to predict the diagnosis and prognosis of cognitive decline with remarkable results. However, less attention has been devoted to the explainability of these models. In this work, we present a robust framework to (i) perform a threefold classification between healthy control subjects, individuals with cognitive impairment, and subjects with dementia using different cognitive indexes and (ii) analyze the variability of the explainability SHAP values associated with the decisions taken by the predictive models. We demonstrate that the SHAP values can accurately characterize how each index affects a patient's cognitive status. Furthermore, we show that a longitudinal analysis of SHAP values can provide effective information on Alzheimer's disease progression.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it