Self-Explainable Graph Neural Network for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias Risk Prediction: Algorithm Development and Validation Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) rank as the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, underlining the importance of accurate ADRD risk prediction. While recent advancements in ADRD risk prediction have primarily relied on imaging analysis, not all patients undergo medical imaging before an ADRD diagnosis. Merging machine learning with claims data can reveal additional risk factors and uncover interconnections among diverse medical codes. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to use graph neural networks (GNNs) with claim data for ADRD risk prediction. Addressing the lack of human-interpretable reasons behind these predictions, we introduce an innovative, self-explainable method to evaluate relationship importance and its influence on ADRD risk prediction. METHODS: We used a variationally regularized encoder-decoder GNN (variational GNN [VGNN]) integrated with our proposed relation importance method for estimating ADRD likelihood. This self-explainable method can provide a feature-important explanation in the context of ADRD risk prediction, leveraging relational information within a graph. Three scenarios with 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year prediction windows were created to assess the model's efficiency, respectively. Random forest (RF) and light gradient boost machine (LGBM) were used as baselines. By using this method, we further clarify the key relationships for ADRD risk prediction. RESULTS: In scenario 1, the VGNN model showed area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) scores of 0.7272 and 0.7480 for the small subset and the matched cohort data set. It outperforms RF and LGBM by 10.6% and 9.1%, respectively, on average. In scenario 2, it achieved AUROC scores of 0.7125 and 0.7281, surpassing the other models by 10.5% and 8.9%, respectively. Similarly, in scenario 3, AUROC scores of 0.7001 and 0.7187 were obtained, exceeding 10.1% and 8.5% than the baseline models, respectively. These results clearly demonstrate the significant superiority of the graph-based approach over the tree-based models (RF and LGBM) in predicting ADRD. Furthermore, the integration of the VGNN model and our relation importance interpretation could provide valuable insight into paired factors that may contribute to or delay ADRD progression. CONCLUSIONS: Using our innovative self-explainable method with claims data enhances ADRD risk prediction and provides insights into the impact of interconnected medical code relationships. This methodology not only enables ADRD risk modeling but also shows potential for other image analysis predictions using claims data.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it