Overview of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and future clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall goal of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is to optimize and validate biomarkers for clinical trials while sharing all data and biofluid samples with the global scientific community. ADNI has been instrumental in standardizing and validating amyloid beta (Aβ) and tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. ADNI data were used for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Fujirebio and Roche Elecsys cerebrospinal fluid diagnostic tests. Additionally, ADNI provided data for the trials of the FDA-approved treatments aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. More than 6000 scientific papers have been published using ADNI data, reflecting ADNI's promotion of open science and data sharing. Despite its enormous success, ADNI has some limitations, particularly in generalizing its data and findings to the entire US/Canadian population. This introduction provides a historical overview of ADNI and highlights its significant accomplishments and future vision to pioneer "the clinical trial of the future" focusing on demographic inclusivity. HIGHLIGHTS: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) introduced a novel model for public-private partnerships and data sharing. It successfully validated amyloid and Tau PET imaging, as well as CSF and plasma biomarkers, for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease. ADNI generated and disseminated vital data for designing AD clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".