Exploring the potential impact of multi-factor precision interventions in Alzheimer’s disease with system dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous clinical trials based on a single-cause paradigm have not resulted in efficacious treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Recently, prevention trials that simultaneously intervened on multiple risk factors have shown mixed results, suggesting that careful design is necessary. Moreover, intensive pilot precision medicine (PM) trial results have been promising but may not generalize to a broader population. These observations suggest that a model-based approach to multi-factor precision medicine (PM) is warranted. We systematically developed a system dynamics model (SDM) of AD for PM using data from two longitudinal studies (N=3660). This method involved a model selection procedure in identifying interaction terms between the SDM components and estimating individualized parameters. We used the SDM to explore simulated single- and double-factor interventions on 14 modifiable risk factors. We quantified the potential impact of double-factor interventions over single-factor interventions as 1.5 [95% CI: 1.5-2.6] and of SDM-based PM over a one-size-fits-all approach as 3.5 [3.1, 3.8] ADAS-cog-13 points in 12 years. Although the model remains to be validated, we tentatively conclude that multi-factor PM could come to play an important role in AD prevention.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".