A functional perspective on the conditional covariance comparison problem in dementia analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are many methods available in the literature to compare the covariance structures of two populations, few are suitable for clinical application due to the inability to account for covariate(s) that affect the dependence structure of the variables being investigated. A common method is to adjust the effect of the covariates via a linear model and work with the resulting residuals. However, removing the effects of the covariates could potentially eliminate valuable information from the analysis. We propose a functional nonparametric covariance matrix estimator to account for any given value in the covariate(s), which allows a comparison of the functional covariance structures of the multivariate data. This comparison is facilitated via a test statistic involving the first eigenvalue of the combined form of covariance matrices of the two groups. Three different approaches, namely, the parametric Tracy-Widom, the semi-parametric Forkman’s test, and the nonparametric Permutation method, are used to compute the approximate p-values of the test statistic. We have conducted extensive simulation studies to determine the type I error and power of the proposed hypothesis testing methods and developed practical recommendations for implementing this novel approach. Finally, we apply our methods to the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study to compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers between dementia and non-dementia cohorts, which offers a fascinating insight into the differences between covariance structures of biomarkers amyloid β (1-42) (A β 42), total tau (tau), and phosphorylated tau (ptau) for given values of age, sex, and years of education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".