Beyond the usual suspects: multi-factorial computational models in the search for neurodegenerative disease mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From Alzheimer's disease to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the molecular cascades underlying neurodegenerative disorders remain poorly understood. The clinical view of neurodegeneration is confounded by symptomatic heterogeneity and mixed pathology in almost every patient. While the underlying physiological alterations originate, proliferate, and propagate potentially decades before symptomatic onset, the complexity and inaccessibility of the living brain limit direct observation over a patient's lifespan. Consequently, there is a critical need for robust computational methods to support the search for causal mechanisms of neurodegeneration by distinguishing pathogenic processes from consequential alterations, and inter-individual variability from intra-individual progression. Recently, promising advances have been made by data-driven spatiotemporal modeling of the brain, based on in vivo neuroimaging and biospecimen markers. These methods include disease progression models comparing the temporal evolution of various biomarkers, causal models linking interacting biological processes, network propagation models reproducing the spatial spreading of pathology, and biophysical models spanning cellular- to network-scale phenomena. In this review, we discuss various computational approaches for integrating cross-sectional, longitudinal, and multi-modal data, primarily from large observational neuroimaging studies, to understand (i) the temporal ordering of physiological alterations, i(i) their spatial relationships to the brain's molecular and cellular architecture, (iii) mechanistic interactions between biological processes, and (iv) the macroscopic effects of microscopic factors. We consider the extents to which computational models can evaluate mechanistic hypotheses, explore applications such as improving treatment selection, and discuss how model-informed insights can lay the groundwork for a pathobiological redefinition of neurodegenerative disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".