MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388521771 · doi:10.1609/aaaiss.v1i1.27491

XGBoost for Interpretable Alzheimer’s Decision Support

2023· article· en· W4388521771 on OpenAlexafffund
Mason Kadem, Michael D. Noseworthy, Thomas E. Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerMinistère de la Défense NationaleAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsInterpretabilityRecallArtificial intelligenceDiseaseMachine learningComputer scienceClinical decision support systemDecision support systemCognitionProcess (computing)MedicineData sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their necessity in directing patient care worldwide, simple and accurate diagnostic tools for early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) do not exist. To support healthcare decision-making and planning, this research leverages large, multi-site accessible data and state-of-the-art supervised machine learning (XGBoost) to enable rapid, accurate, low-cost, accessible, non-invasive, interpretable, and early clinical evaluation of AD. Machine learning was employed to combine three key features: Everyday Cognition Questionnaire, Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale, and Delayed Total Recall, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curves scores consistently above 97%. The selected features are important because they are non-invasive and easily collected. Low performance on delayed recall alone appears to distinguish most AD patients, consistent with the pathophysiology of AD where individuals having problems storing new information into long-term memory. Distinguishing this research from existing literature was the focus of enhancing the model's interpretability while maintaining performance of more complex and opaque models. The interpretable model enables understanding of the decision process, vital for clinical adoption of machine learning tools in AD evaluation. In summary, we present a methodology which identified accessible and noninvasive features, each with their absolute thresholds, together with a clinically operable decision route, to accurately and rapidly detect, differentiate, and diagnose Alzheimer's disease patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Symposium SeriesSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207