Using artificial intelligence to learn optimal regimen plan for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurological disorder with no specific curative medications. Sophisticated clinical skills are crucial to optimize treatment regimens given the multiple coexisting comorbidities in the patient population. OBJECTIVE: Here, we propose a study to leverage reinforcement learning (RL) to learn the clinicians' decisions for AD patients based on the longitude data from electronic health records. METHODS: In this study, we selected 1736 patients from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. We focused on the two most frequent concomitant diseases-depression, and hypertension, thus creating 5 data cohorts (ie, Whole Data, AD, AD-Hypertension, AD-Depression, and AD-Depression-Hypertension). We modeled the treatment learning into an RL problem by defining states, actions, and rewards. We built a regression model and decision tree to generate multiple states, used six combinations of medications (ie, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, memantine-cholinesterase inhibitors, hypertension drugs, supplements, or no drugs) as actions, and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores as rewards. RESULTS: Given the proper dataset, the RL model can generate an optimal policy (regimen plan) that outperforms the clinician's treatment regimen. Optimal policies (ie, policy iteration and Q-learning) had lower rewards than the clinician's policy (mean -3.03 and -2.93 vs. -2.93, respectively) for smaller datasets but had higher rewards for larger datasets (mean -4.68 and -2.82 vs. -4.57, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the potential of using RL to generate the optimal treatment based on the patients' longitude records. Our work can lead the path towards developing RL-based decision support systems that could help manage AD with comorbidities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".