Overview and Application of Intrasubject Variability in ADRD Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrasubject variability is an important, but often overlooked, measure that has shown to be predictive of important clinical outcomes in ADRD research. Intrasubject variability is often quantified using the intrasubject standard deviation (ISD) that is derived from longitudinal measures or cross-sectional observations from similarly scaled variables. This talk will begin with an overview of ISD and its application in both longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. For longitudinal analyses, ISD can be an important measure of normative performance variability on cognitive measures which can better inform clinicians on what normative trajectories for cognitive tests might be. An example using longitudinal data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) will demonstrate how the ISD can be used quantify normative variability of longitudinal cognitive performance. The second part of this talk will discuss how ISD is used in cross-sectional analyses of neuropsychological data. Specifically, how ISD is used to characterize the concept of dispersion which quantifies the inconsistency of between-domain cognitive performance. Several studies have indicated that cognitive dispersion predicts incident cognitive decline and is associated with AD pathology which highlight the utility ISD may have in characterizing preclinical AD. An additional example using data from a complex motor task will show how the ISD of repeated task trials can differentiate cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD cases. The conceptualization and application of ISD in this talk will set the stage for the other talks in this session that will demonstrate in greater detail how ISD can be used across the AD spectrum.
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 | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".