Forecasting individual progression trajectories in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anticipation of progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial for evaluations of secondary prevention measures thought to modify the disease trajectory. However, it is difficult to forecast the natural progression of AD, notably because several functions decline at different ages and different rates in different patients. We evaluate here AD Course Map, a statistical model predicting the progression of neuropsychological assessments and imaging biomarkers for a patient from current medical and radiological data at early disease stages. We tested the method on more than 96,000 cases, with a pool of more than 4,600 patients from four continents. We measured the accuracy of the method for selecting participants displaying a progression of clinical endpoints during a hypothetical trial. We show that enriching the population with the predicted progressors decreases the required sample size by 38% to 50%, depending on trial duration, outcome, and targeted disease stage, from asymptomatic individuals at risk of AD to subjects with early and mild AD. We show that the method introduces no biases regarding sex or geographic locations and is robust to missing data. It performs best at the earliest stages of disease and is therefore highly suitable for use in prevention trials.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".