Generate Synthetic Data in R for a Hypothetical Alzheimer’s Disease Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Representative data of recent Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) trials are difficult to obtain. We aimed to generate a synthetic version of an original real-world observational dataset, subsequently apply a plausible AD treatment effect, and make our method open-source available. METHODS Synthetic data was generated in the following steps: (1) Obtain real-world data from the ADNI study on demographic (age, sex, education), clinical (cognition: MMSE and ADAS; function: FAQ; composite cognition/function: CDR, ADCOMS) and biological (genetics: APOE4; cerebrospinal fluid: ABeta, Tau; imaging: PET-SUVR-centiloid) outcomes at baseline, 6, 12 and/or 18-month follow-up (35 variables), with missing data multiple-imputed to obtain 10 sets of 537 individuals. (2) Estimate (theoretical) minimum and maximum (all continuous variables) and proportions (all categorical variables). (3) Rescale to 0-1 range (continuous). (4) Estimate beta distribution shape parameters (method of moments; continuous). (5) Transform to cumulative probability distribution function (using shape parameters; continuous) and to cumulative probability (categorical). (6) Transform to a normal distribution. (7) Estimate variance-covariance matrix. (8) Generate random correlated normal data using Cholesky decomposition of variance-covariance. (9) Transform to cumulative probability distribution function. (10) Transform to beta distribution (using shape parameters; continuous). (11) Rescale to original range. (12) Keep half as control arm, and half as intervention arm, and estimate change from baseline. (13) Multiply intervention change from baseline with self-defined hypothetical relative treatment effect. We assumed correlations on normalized scale were similar to correlations on original scale. R code is available on github: https://github.com/ronhandels/synthetic-correlated-data . RESULTS The synthetic distribution and mean over time showed large similarity to the original data (visually assessed). The absolute difference in pairwise correlations between original and synthetic data median was 0.02 (95th percentile=0.11, max=0.18). CONCLUSION We judged our method sufficiently valid to generate synthetic correlated plausible hypothetical trial results.
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 | 0.033 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".