MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390198847 · doi:10.1002/alz.082225

Are Digital Markers of Everyday Driving Comparable to Fluid Biomarkers in Identifying Preclinical Alzheimer Disease?

2023· article· en· W4390198847 on OpenAlexaff
Sayeh Bayat, Ganesh M. Babulal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicBiomarkerMedicinePositron emission tomographyCerebrospinal fluidApolipoprotein EInternal medicineDiseasePsychologyOncologyPathologyNuclear medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may have a subtle functional signature reflected in changes in everyday driving behaviour. Driving has the potential to serve as a digital marker for AD when captured continuously and characterized accurately. This study directly compares the diagnostic performance of digital markers of everyday driving, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and blood biomarkers in detecting amyloid deposition in AD, using amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) as the “gold standard”. Method Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal study on driving and preclinical AD biomarkers at Washington University School of Medicine. The Driving Real‐World In‐Vehicle Evaluation System (DRIVES) Project uses in‐vehicle GPS dataloggers to collect daily driving among cognitive normal drivers. This study included 121 drivers (aged 65+) with complete blood, CSF, and PET biomarker data. We employed three artificial neural network (ANN) to examine the relationship between everyday driving and PET‐amyloid status. The first model solely included driving features. The second ANN model (i.e., “non‐intrusive” model) added age and education level as additional features. The third model included all of the previous features plus APOE e4 status. Plasma Aß42/Aß40<0.1013 and CSF Aß42/Aß40<0.0673 were used to detect PET‐amyloid positivity. To compare the performance of the ANN models and the CSF and plasma biomarkers, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) from 5‐fold cross‐validation were calculated. Result Individuals who were PET‐amyloid positive (n = 46) were more likely to be older (p<.05) and carry an APOE e4 allele (p<.0001). The two groups did not differ in sex or education. In predicting PET‐amyloid positivity, the five most important driving features were the number of left turns per mile, 80th percentile of jerk, minimum vehicle speed, speed variability, and the number of speeding incidents. The CSF biomarker achieved the highest performance (AUC = 0.96±0.04), followed by the model with driving, age, education and APOE e4 status (AUC = 0.88±0.05). The model with only driving features achieved lower performance (AUC = 0.74±0.07), while the non‐intrusive ANN model achieved comparable performance to the plasma biomarker (AUC: 0.82±0.11vs.0.83±0.12). Conclusion Digital markers of everyday driving along with age and education level offer a non‐intrusive and scalable diagnostic tool for preclinical AD that provides ongoing assessments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207