Identifying brain hierarchical structures associated with Alzheimer's disease using a regularized regression method with tree predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain segmentation at different levels is generally represented as hierarchical trees. Brain regional atrophy at specific levels was found to be marginally associated with Alzheimer's disease outcomes. In this study, we propose an L1-type regularization for predictors that follow a hierarchical tree structure. Considering a tree as a directed acyclic graph, we interpret the model parameters from a path analysis perspective. Under this concept, the proposed penalty regulates the total effect of each predictor on the outcome. With regularity conditions, it is shown that under the proposed regularization, the estimator of the model coefficient is consistent in L2-norm and the model selection is also consistent. By applying to a brain structural magnetic resonance imaging dataset acquired from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, the proposed approach identifies brain regions where atrophy in these regions demonstrates the declination in memory. With regularization on the total effects, the findings suggest that the impact of atrophy on memory deficits is localized from small brain regions but at various levels of brain segmentation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".