MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4318462488 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.26.23285064

Using Artificial Intelligence to Learn Optimal Regimen Plan for Alzheimer’s Disease

2023· preprint· en· W4318462488 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kritib Bhattarai, Trisha Das, Yejin Kim, Yongbin Chen, Qiying Dai, Xiaoyang Li, Xiaoqian Jiang, Nansu Zong

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationF. Hoffmann-La RocheBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)RegimenDiseaseComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is a progressive neurological disorder with no specific curative medications. While only a few medications are approved by FDA (i.e., donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) to relieve symptoms (e.g., cognitive decline), sophisticated clinical skills are crucial to optimize the appropriate regimens given the multiple coexisting comorbidities in this patient population. Objective Here, we propose a study to leverage reinforcement learning (RL) to learn the clinicians’ decisions for AD patients based on the longitude records from Electronic Health Records (EHR). Methods In this study, we withdraw 1,736 patients fulfilling our criteria, from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative(ADNI) database. We focused on the two most frequent concomitant diseases, depression, and hypertension, thus resulting in five main cohorts, 1) whole data, 2) AD-only, 3) AD-hypertension, 4) AD-depression, and 5) AD-hypertension-depression. We modeled the treatment learning into an RL problem by defining the three factors (i.e., states, action, and reward) in RL in multiple strategies, where a regression model and a decision tree are developed to generate states, six main medications extracted (i.e., no drugs, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, hypertension drugs, a combination of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, and supplements or other drugs) are for action, and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores are for reward. Results Given the proper dataset, the RL model can generate an optimal policy (regimen plan) that outperforms the clinician’s treatment regimen. With the smallest data samples, the optimal-policy (i.e., policy iteration and Q-learning) gained a lesser reward than the clinician’s policy (mean -2.68 and -2.76 vs . -2.66, respectively), but it gained more reward once the data size increased (mean -3.56 and -2.48 vs . -3.57, respectively). Conclusions Our results highlight the potential of using RL to generate the optimal treatment based on the patients’ longitude records. Our work can lead the path toward the development of RL-based decision support systems which could facilitate the daily practice to manage Alzheimer’s disease with comorbidities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→