Hippocampal grading provides higher classification accuracy for those in the AD trajectory than hippocampal volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has focused on neurodegeneration in aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD). We developed Scoring by Nonlocal Image Patch Estimator (SNIPE), a non-local patch-based measure of anatomical similarity and hippocampal segmentation to measure hippocampal change. While SNIPE shows enhanced predictive power over hippocampal volume, it is unknown whether SNIPE is more strongly associated with group differences between normal controls (NC), early MCI (eMCI), late (lMCI), and AD than hippocampal volume. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative older adults were included in the first analyses (N = 1666, 513 NCs, 269 eMCI, 556 lMCI, and 328 AD). Sub-analyses investigated amyloid positive individuals (N = 834; 179 NC, 148 eMCI, 298 lMCI, and 209 AD) to determine accuracy in those on the AD trajectory. We compared SNIPE grading, SNIPE volume, and Freesurfer volume as features in seven different machine learning techniques classifying participants into their correct cohort using 10-fold cross-validation. The best model was then validated in the Australian Imaging, Biomarker & Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing (AIBL). SNIPE grading provided the highest classification accuracy for all classifications in both the full and amyloid positive sample. When classifying NC:AD, SNIPE grading provided an 89% accuracy (full sample) and 87% (amyloid positive sample). Freesurfer volume provided much lower accuracies of 65% (full sample) and 46% (amyloid positive sample). In the AIBL validation cohort, SNIPE grading provided a 90% classification accuracy for NC:AD. These findings suggest SNIPE grading provides increased classification accuracy over both SNIPE and Freesurfer volume. SNIPE grading offers promise to accurately identify people with and without AD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".