Does adding MRI and CSF-based biomarkers improve cognitive status classification based on cognitive performance questionnaires?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive status classification (e.g. dementia, cognitive impairment without dementia, and normal) based on cognitive performance questionnaires has been widely used in population-based studies, providing insight into the population dynamics of dementia. However, researchers have raised concerns about the accuracy of cognitive assessments. MRI and CSF biomarkers may provide improved classification, but the potential improvement in classification in population-based studies is relatively unknown. METHODS: Data come from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We examined whether the addition of MRI and CSF biomarkers improved cognitive status classification based on cognitive status questionnaires (MMSE). We estimated several multinomial logistic regression models with different combinations of MMSE and CSF/MRI biomarkers. Based on these models, we also predicted prevalence of each cognitive status category using a model with MMSE only and a model with MMSE + MRI + CSF measures and compared them to diagnosed prevalence. RESULTS: Our analysis showed a slight improvement in variance explained (pseudo-R2) between the model with MMSE only and the model including MMSE and MRI/CSF biomarkers; the pseudo-R2 increased from .401 to .445. Additionally, in evaluating differences in predicted prevalence for each cognitive status, we found a small improvement in the predicted prevalence of cognitively normal individuals between the MMSE only model and the model with MMSE and CSF/MRI biomarkers (3.1% improvement). We found no improvement in the correct prediction of dementia prevalence. CONCLUSION: MRI and CSF biomarkers, while important for understanding dementia pathology in clinical research, were not found to substantially improve cognitive status classification based on cognitive status performance, which may limit adoption in population-based surveys due to costs, training, and invasiveness associated with their collection.
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 | 0.025 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".