Everyday Driving and Plasma Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s Disease: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Expand Our Diagnostic Toolkit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Driving behavior as a digital marker and recent developments in blood-based biomarkers show promise as a widespread solution for the early identification of Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: This study used artificial intelligence methods to evaluate the association between naturalistic driving behavior and blood-based biomarkers of AD. METHODS: We employed an artificial neural network (ANN) to examine the relationship between everyday driving behavior and plasma biomarker of AD. The primary outcome was plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, where Aβ42/Aβ40 < 0.1013 was used to define amyloid positivity. Two ANN models were trained and tested for predicting the outcome. The first model architecture only includes driving variables as input, whereas the second architecture includes the combination of age, APOE ɛ4 status, and driving variables. RESULTS: All 142 participants (mean [SD] age 73.9 [5.2] years; 76 [53.5%] men; 80 participants [56.3% ] with amyloid positivity based on plasma Aβ42/Aβ40) were cognitively normal. The six driving features, included in the ANN models, were the number of trips during rush hour, the median and standard deviation of jerk, the number of hard braking incidents and night trips, and the standard deviation of speed. The F1 score of the model with driving variables alone was 0.75 [0.023] for predicting plasma Aβ42/Aβ40. Incorporating age and APOE ɛ4 carrier status improved the diagnostic performance of the model to 0.80 [>0.051]. CONCLUSION: Blood-based AD biomarkers offer a novel opportunity to establish the efficacy of naturalistic driving as an accessible digital marker for AD pathology in driving research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".