Using Artificial Intelligence to Learn Optimal Regimen Plan for Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".