Comparison of Machine Learning-based Approaches to Predict the Conversion to Alzheimer’s Disease from Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), identifying a high risk of conversion to Alzheimer's Disease Dementia (AD) is a primary goal for patient management. Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are widely employed to pursue data-driven diagnostic and prognostic goals. An agreement on the stability of these algorithms -when applied to different biomarkers and other conditions- is far from being reached. In this study, we compared the different prognostic performances of three supervised ML algorithms fed with multimodal biomarkers of MCI subjects obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting algorithms predict MCI conversion to AD. They can also be simultaneously employed -with the voting procedure- to improve predictivity. AD prediction accuracy is influenced by the nature of the data (i.e., neuropsychological test scores, cerebrospinal fluid AD-related proteins and APOE ε4, cerebral structural MRI (sMRI) data). In our study, independent of the applied ML algorithms, sMRI data showed the lowest accuracy (0.79) compared to other classes. Multimodal data were helpful in the algorithms' performances by combining clinical and biological measures. Accordingly, using the three ML algorithms, the highest accuracy (0.90) was reached by employing neuropsychological and AD-related biomarkers. Finally, the feature selection procedure indicated that the most critical variables in the respective classes were the ADAS-Cog-13 scale, the medial temporal lobe and hippocampus atrophy, and the ratio between phosphorylated Tau and Aβ42 proteins. In conclusion, our data support the notion that using multiple ML algorithms and multimodal biomarkers helps make more accurate and solid predictions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".