MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400487962 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.09.24310163

Exploring the power of MRI and clinical measures in predicting Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology

2024· preprint· en· W4400487962 on OpenAlexafffund
Farooq Kamal, Cassandra Morrison, Michael Oliver, Mahsa Dadar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du QuebecNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationBioClinicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBiogenPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaAlzheimer SocietyU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer Society Research ProgramAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsNeuropathologyAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The ability to predict Alzheimer’s disease (AD) before diagnosis is a topic of intense research. Early diagnosis would aid in improving treatment and intervention options, however, there are no current methods that can accurately predict AD years in advance. This study examines a novel machine learning approach that integrates the combined effects of vascular (white matter hyperintensities, WMHs), and structural brain changes (gray matter, GM) with clinical factors (cognitive status) to predict post-mortem neuropathological outcomes. Methods Healthy older adults, participants with mild cognitive impairment, and AD from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset with both post-mortem neuropathology data and antemortem MRI and clinical data were included. Longitudinal data were analyzed across three intervals before death (post-mortem data): 0-4 years, 4-8 years, and 8-14 years. Additionally, cross-sectional data at the last visit or interval (within four years, 0-4 years) before death were also examined. Machine learning models including gradient boosting, bagging, support vector regression, and linear regression were implemented. These models were applied towards feature selection of the top seven MRI, clinical, and demographic data to identify the best performing set of variables that could predict postmortem neuropathology outcomes (i.e., neurofibrillary tangles, neuritic plaques, diffuse plaques, senile/amyloid plaques, and amyloid angiopathy). Results A total of 94 participants (55-90 years of age) were included in the study. At last visit, the best-performing model included total and temporal lobe WMHs and achieved r =0.87( RMSE =0.62) during cross-validation for neuritic plaques. For longitudinal assessments across different intervals, the best-performing model included regional GM (i.e., hippocampus, amygdala, caudate) and frontal lobe WMH and achieved r =0.93( RMSE =0.59) during cross-validation for neurofibrillary tangles. For MRI and clinical predictors and clinical-only predictors, t -tests demonstrated significant differences at all intervals before death ( t [-13.60-7.90], p -values<0.001). Overall, post-mortem neuropathology outcome were predicted up to 14 years before death with high accuracies (∼90%). Conclusions Prediction accuracy was higher for post-mortem neuropathology outcomes that included MRI (WMHs, GM) and clinical features compared to clinical-only features. These findings highlight that MRI features are critical to successfully predict AD-related pathology years in advance which will improve participant selection for clinical trials, treatments, and intervention options.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.107 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→