A trichotomy method for defining homogeneous subgroups in a dementia population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Diagnosis of dementia in the aging brain is confounded by the presence of multiple pathologies. Mixed dementia (MX), a combination of Alzheimer's disease (AD) proteins with vascular disease (VD), is frequently found at autopsy, and has been difficult to diagnose during life. This report develops a method for separating the MX group and defining preclinical AD (presence of AD factors with normal cognition) and preclinical VD subgroups (presence of white matter damage with normal cognition). Methods Clustering was based on three diagnostic axes: (1) AD factor (ADF) derived from cerebrospinal fluid proteins (Aβ42 and pTau), (2) VD factor (VDF) calculated from mean free water and peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity in the white matter, and (3) Cognition (Cog) based on memory and executive function. The trichotomy method was applied to an Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort (N = 538). Results Eight biologically defined subgroups were identified which included the MX group with both high ADF and VDF (9.3%) and a preclinical VD group (3.9%), and a preclinical AD group (13.6%). Cog is significantly associated with both ADF and VDF, and the partial‐correlation remains significant even when the effect of the other variable is removed (r(Cog, ADF/VDF removed) = 0.46, p < 10−28 and r(Cog, VDF/ADF removed) = 0.24, p < 10−7). Discussion The trichotomy method creates eight biologically characterized patient groups, which includes MX, preclinical AD, and preclinical VD subgroups. Further longitudinal studies are needed to determine the utility of the 3‐way clustering method with multimodal biological biomarkers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".