Discovery of novel CSF biomarkers to predict progression in dementia using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing an accurate prognosis for individual dementia patients remains a challenge since they greatly differ in rates of cognitive decline. In this study, we used machine learning techniques with the aim to identify cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers that predict the rate of cognitive decline within dementia patients. First, longitudinal mini-mental state examination scores (MMSE) of 210 dementia patients were used to create fast and slow progression groups. Second, we trained random forest classifiers on CSF proteomic profiles and obtained a well-performing prediction model for the progression group (ROC-AUC = 0.82). As a third step, Shapley values and Gini feature importance measures were used to interpret the model performance and identify top biomarker candidates for predicting the rate of cognitive decline. Finally, we explored the potential for each of the 20 top candidates in internal sensitivity analyses. TNFRSF4 and TGF [Formula: see text]-1 emerged as the top markers, being lower in fast-progressing patients compared to slow-progressing patients. Proteins of which a low concentration was associated with fast progression were enriched for cell signalling and immune response pathways. None of our top markers stood out as strong individual predictors of subsequent cognitive decline. This could be explained by small effect sizes per protein and biological heterogeneity among dementia patients. Taken together, this study presents a novel progression biomarker identification framework and protein leads for personalised prediction of cognitive decline in dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".