Personalising Alzheimer’s Disease progression using brain atrophy markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neuroanatomical normative modelling can capture individual variability in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). We used neuroanatomical normative modelling to track individuals' disease progression in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and patients with AD. METHODS: Cortical thickness and subcortical volume neuroanatomical normative models were generated using healthy controls (n~58k). These models were used to calculate regional Z-scores in 4361 T1-weighted MRI time-series scans. Regions with Z-scores <-1.96 were classified as outliers and mapped on the brain, and also summarised by total outlier count (tOC). RESULTS: Rate of change in tOC increased in AD and in people with MCI who converted to AD and correlated with multiple non-imaging markers. Moreover, a higher annual rate of change in tOC increased the risk of MCI progression to AD. Brain Z-score maps showed that the hippocampus had the highest rate of atrophy change. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level atrophy rates can be tracked by using regional outlier maps and tOC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".