Artificial intelligence for dementia research methods optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches are increasingly being used in dementia research. However, several methodological challenges exist that may limit the insights we can obtain from high-dimensional data and our ability to translate these findings into improved patient outcomes. To improve reproducibility and replicability, researchers should make their well-documented code and modeling pipelines openly available. Data should also be shared where appropriate. To enhance the acceptability of models and AI-enabled systems to users, researchers should prioritize interpretable methods that provide insights into how decisions are generated. Models should be developed using multiple, diverse datasets to improve robustness, generalizability, and reduce potentially harmful bias. To improve clarity and reproducibility, researchers should adhere to reporting guidelines that are co-produced with multiple stakeholders. If these methodological challenges are overcome, AI and ML hold enormous promise for changing the landscape of dementia research and care. HIGHLIGHTS: Machine learning (ML) can improve diagnosis, prevention, and management of dementia. Inadequate reporting of ML procedures affects reproduction/replication of results. ML models built on unrepresentative datasets do not generalize to new datasets. Obligatory metrics for certain model structures and use cases have not been defined. Interpretability and trust in ML predictions are barriers to clinical translation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".