Standardized statistical framework for comparison of biomarkers: Techniques from ADNI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Well-chosen biomarkers have the potential to increase the efficiency of clinical trials and drug discovery and should show good precision as well as clinical validity. METHODS: We suggest measures that operationalize these criteria and describe a general approach that can be used for inference-based comparisons of biomarker performance. The methods are applied to measures obtained from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from individuals with mild dementia (n = 70) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 303) enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. RESULTS: Ventricular volume and hippocampal volume showed the best precision in detecting change over time in both individuals with MCI and with dementia. Differences in clinical validity varied by group. DISCUSSION: The methodology presented provides a standardized framework for comparison of biomarkers across modalities and across different methods used to generate similar measures and will help in the search for the most promising biomarkers. HIGHLIGHTS: A framework for comparison of biomarkers on pre-defined criteria is presented. Criteria for comparison include precision in capturing change and clinical validity. Ventricular volume has high precision in change for both dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) trials. Imaging measures' performance in clinical validity varies more for dementia than for MCI.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.214 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".