Identification of preclinical dementia according to ATN classification for stratified trial recruitment: A machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Amyloid/Tau/Neurodegeneration (ATN) framework was proposed to identify the preclinical biological state of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We investigated whether ATN phenotype can be predicted using routinely collected research cohort data. METHODS: 927 EPAD LCS cohort participants free of dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment were separated into 5 ATN categories. We used machine learning (ML) methods to identify a set of significant features separating each neurodegeneration-related group from controls (A-T-(N)-). Random Forest and linear-kernel SVM with stratified 5-fold cross validations were used to optimize model whose performance was then tested in the ADNI database. RESULTS: Our optimal results outperformed ATN cross-validated logistic regression models by between 2.2% and 8.3%. The optimal feature sets were not consistent across the 4 models with the AD pathologic change vs controls set differing the most from the rest. Because of that we have identified a subset of 10 features that yield results very close or identical to the optimal. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates the gains offered by ML in generating ATN risk prediction over logistic regression models among pre-dementia individuals.
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 | 0.031 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".