Sex Differences in Conversion Risk from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer’s Disease: An Explainable Machine Learning Study with Random Survival Forests and SHAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) exhibits sex-linked variations, with women having a higher prevalence, and little is known about the sexual dimorphism in progressing from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to AD. The main aim of our study was to shed light on the sex-specific conversion-to-AD risk factors using Random Survival Forests (RSF), a Machine Learning survival approach, and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) on dementia biomarkers in stable (sMCI) and progressive (pMCI) patients. With this purpose, we built two separate models for male (M-RSF) and female (F-RSF) cohorts to assess whether global explanations differ between the sexes. Similarly, SHAP local explanations were obtained to investigate changes across sexes in feature contributions to individual risk predictions. The M-RSF achieved higher performance on the test set (0.87) than the F-RSF (0.79), and global explanations of male and female models had limited similarity (<71.1%). Common influential variables across the sexes included brain glucose metabolism and CSF biomarkers. Conversely, the M-RSF had a notable contribution from hippocampus, which had a lower impact on the F-RSF, while verbal memory and executive function were key contributors only in F-RSF. Our findings confirmed that females had a higher risk of progressing to dementia; moreover, we highlighted distinct sex-driven patterns of variable importance, uncovering different feature contribution risks across sexes that decrease/increase the conversion-to-AD risk.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".