The Brain Health Platform: Combining Resilience, Vulnerability, and Performance to Assess Brain Health and Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is difficult to assess brain health status and risk of cognitive impairment, particularly at the initial evaluation. To address this, we developed the Brain Health Platform to quantify brain health and identify Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRD) risk factors by combining a measure of brain health: the Resilience Index (RI), a measure of risk of ADRD; the Vulnerability Index (VI); and the Number-Symbol Coding Task (NSCT), a measure of brain performance. OBJECTIVE: The Brain Health Platform is intended to be easily and quickly administered, providing an overview of a patient's risk of developing future impairment based on modifiable and non-modifiable factors as well as current cognitive performance. METHODS: This cross-sectional study comprehensively evaluated 230 participants (71 controls, 71 mild cognitive impairment, 88 ADRD). VI and RI scores were derived from physical assessments, lifestyle questionnaires, demographics, medical history, and neuropsychological examination including the NSCT. RESULTS: Individuals with abnormal scores were 95.7% likely to be impaired, with a misclassification rate of 9.7%. The combined model had excellent discrimination (AUC:0.923±0.053; p < 0.001), performing better than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. CONCLUSION: The Brain Health Platform combines measures of resilience, vulnerability, and performance to provide a cross-sectional snapshot of overall brain health. The Brain Health Platform can effectively and accurately identify even the very mildest impairments due to ADRD, leveraging brief yet powerful and actionable indices of brain health and risk that could be used to develop personalized, precision medicine-like 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".