MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Developing a Machine Learning Model to Predict the Risk of Cognitive Decline in Early Parkinson's Disease

2024· preprint· en· W4404062797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raziyeh Mohammadi, Samuel Yong‐Ern Ng, Jayne Yi Tan, Adeline Su Lyn Ng, Xiao Deng, Xinyi Choi, Dede Liana Heng, Shermyn Neo, Zheyu Xu, Kay‐Yaw Tay, Wing‐Lok Au, Eng‐King Tan, Louis Tan, Ewout W. Steyerberg, William H. Greene, Seyed Ehsan Saffari

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive declineDiseaseParkinson's diseaseCognitionCognitive psychologyPsychologyEconomicsMedicineNeuroscienceDementiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cognitive decline (CD) is a significant concern in Parkinson's disease (PD), highlighting the need for reliable risk prediction models for early intervention. This study used machine learning (ML) techniques to predict the CD risk over five-year in early-stage PD. Methods: Data from the Early Parkinson's Disease Longitudinal Singapore (2014 to 2018) was used to predict CD defined as a one-unit annual decrease or a one-unit decline in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) over two consecutive years. Four ML methods—AutoScore, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors and Neural Network—were applied using baseline demographics, clinical assessments and blood biomarkers. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. Results: Variable selection identified key predictors of CD, including education year, diastolic lying blood pressure, diastolic standing blood pressure, systolic lying blood pressure, Hoehn and Yahr scale, body mass index, phosphorylated tau at threonine 181, total tau, Neurofilament light chain and suppression of tumorigenicity 2. Random Forest was the most effective, achieving an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.97), using 10-fold cross-validation. Conclusion: ML-based models offer potential for early identification of patients at high risk of CD, facilitating targeted interventions and improving patient outcomes in PD management.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→