The development of an automated machine learning pipeline for the detection of Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Alzheimer's disease is the most prevalent form of dementia, there are no treatments capable of slowing disease progression. A lack of reliable disease endpoints and/or biomarkers contributes in part to the absence of effective therapies. Using machine learning to analyze EEG offers a possible solution to overcome many of the limitations of current diagnostic modalities. Here we develop a logistic regression model with an accuracy of 81% that addresses many of the shortcomings of previous works. To our knowledge, no other study has been able to solve the following problems simultaneously: (1) a lack of automation and unbiased removal of artifacts, (2) a dependence on a high level of expertise in data pre-processing and ML for non-automated processes, (3) the need for very large sample sizes and accurate EEG source localization using high density systems, (4) and a reliance on black box ML approaches such as deep neural nets with unexplainable feature selection. This study presents a proof-of-concept for an automated and scalable technology that could potentially be used to diagnose AD in clinical settings as an adjunct to conventional neuropsychological testing, thus enhancing efficiency, reproducibility, and practicality of AD diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 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".