Examining Cognitive Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease Progression Using Computational Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prognosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression has been recognized as a challenging problem due to the massive numbers of cognitive, and pathological features recorded for patients and controls. While there have been many studies investigated the diagnosis of dementia using pathological characteristics, predicting the advancement of the disease using cognitive elements has not been heavily studied particularly using technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning. This research aims at evaluating items of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 13 (ADAS-Cog-13) test to determine key cognitive items that influence the progression of AD. A methodology that consists of machine learning and feature selection (FS) techniques was designed, implemented, and then tested against real data observations (cases and controls) of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) repository with a narrow scope on cognitive items of the ADAS-Cog-13 test. Results obtained by ten-fold cross validation and using dissimilar classification and FS techniques revealed that the decision tree algorithm produced classification models with the best performing results from the cognitive items. For ADAS-Cog-13 test, memory and learning features including word recall, delayed word recall and word recognition were the key items pinpointing to AD advancement. When these three cognitive items are processed excluding demographics by C4.5 algorithm the models derived showed 82.90% accuracy, 87.60% sensitivity and 78.20% specificity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".