Complementary value of molecular, phenotypic, and functional aging biomarkers in dementia prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation age (MA), brain age (BA), and frailty index (FI) are putative aging biomarkers linked to dementia risk. We investigated their relationship and combined potential for prediction of cognitive impairment and future dementia risk using the ADNI database. Of several MA algorithms, DunedinPACE and GrimAge2, associated with memory, were combined in a composite MA alongside BA and a data-driven FI in predictive analyses. Pairwise correlations between age- and sex-adjusted measures for MA (aMA), aBA, and aFI were low. FI outperformed BA and MA in all diagnostic tasks. A model including age, sex, and aFI achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for differentiating cognitively normal controls (CN) from dementia patients in a held-out test set. When combined with clinical biomarkers (apolipoprotein E ε4 allele count, memory, executive function), a model including aBA and aFI predicted 5-year dementia risk among MCI patients with an out-of-sample AUC of 0.88. In the prognostic model, BA and FI offered complementary value (both βs 0.50). The tested MAs did not improve predictions. Results were consistent across FI algorithms, with data-driven health deficit selection yielding the best performance. FI had a stronger adverse effect on prognosis in males, while BA's impact was greater in females. Our findings highlight the complementary value of BA and FI in dementia prediction. The results support a multidimensional view of dementia, including an intertwined relationship between the biomarkers, sex, and prognosis. The tested MA's limited contribution suggests caution in their use for individual risk assessment of dementia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".