MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308770246 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201572

Predicting Cognitive Decline in Older Adults Using Baseline Metrics of AD Pathologies, Cerebrovascular Disease, and Neurodegeneration

2022· article· en· W4308770246 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lloyd Prosser, Amy MacDougall, Carole H. Sudre, Emily N. Manning, Ian B. Malone, Phoebe Walsh, Olivia Goodkin, Hugh Pemberton, Frederik Barkhof, Geert Jan Biessels, David M. Cash, Josephine Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiWolfson FoundationBrain Research TrustCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchProthenaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationBioClinicaBiogenPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsNeurodegenerationDiseaseMedicineCognitive declineBaseline (sea)CognitionCognitive impairmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychologyDementiaPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Dementia is a growing socio-economic challenge that requires early intervention. Identifying biomarkers that reliably predict clinical progression early in the disease process would better aid selection of individuals for future trial participation. Here we compared the ability of baseline, single time-point biomarkers (CSF amyloid 1-42, CSF ptau-181, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), cerebral microbleeds (CMB), whole-brain volume, and hippocampal volume) to predict decline in cognitively normal individuals who later converted to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (CNtoMCI), and those with MCI who later converted to an Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis (MCItoAD). Methods: Standardised baseline biomarker data from ADNI2/Go, and longitudinal diagnostic data (including ADNI3), were used. Cox regression models assessed biomarkers in relation to time to change in clinical diagnosis using all follow-up timepoints available. Models were fit for biomarkers univariately, and together in a multivariable model. Hazard Ratios (HR) were compared to evaluate biomarkers. Analyses were performed separately in CNtoMCI and MCItoAD groups. Results: For CNtoMCI (n = 189), there was strong evidence that higher WMH volume (individual model: HR 1.79, p = .002; fully-adjusted model: HR 1.98, p = .003), and lower hippocampal volume (individual: HR 0.54, p = .001; fully-adjusted: HR 0.40, p < .001) were associated with conversion to MCI individually and independently. For MCItoAD (n = 345), lower hippocampal (individual model: HR 0.45, p < .001; fully-adjusted model: HR 0.55, p < .001) and whole-brain volume (individual: HR 0.31, p < .001; fully-adjusted: HR 0.48, p = .02), increased CSF ptau (individual: HR 1.88, p < .001; fully-adjusted: HR 1.61, p < .001), and lower CSF amyloid (individual: HR 0.37, p < .001, fully-adjusted: HR 0.62, p = .008) were most strongly associated with conversion to AD individually and independently. Discussion: Lower hippocampal volume was a consistent predictor of clinical conversion to MCI and AD. CSF and brain volume biomarkers were predictive of conversion to AD from MCI, while WMH were predictive of conversion to MCI from cognitively normal. The predictive ability of WMH in the CNtoMCI group may be interpreted as some being on a different pathological pathway, such as vascular cognitive impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207