MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406050402 · doi:10.1002/alz.088522

Validation of machine learning models to detect neuropathologies

2024· article· en· W4406050402 on OpenAlexaff
Farooq Kamal, Cassandra Morrison, Michael Oliver, Mahsa Dadar

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSupport vector machineAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeFeature selectionNeuroimagingLogistic regressionCorrelationSenile plaquesComputer sciencePsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseCognitionCognitive impairmentMedicinePathologyNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are increasingly recognized for their role in cognitive decline and the progression of neurodegenerative conditions including Alzheimer's disease (AD). Despite advances in imaging technologies, the exact contribution of WMHs to disease processes remains a subject of ongoing research. This study aims to apply machine learning approaches to determine critical features of AD-related neuropathologies in vivo. METHODS: A total of 65 participants (17 females, mean age = 79.0) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included. In the ADNI dataset, machine learning models were applied towards feature selection of MRI, clinical, and demographic data to identify the best performing set of variables that could predict neuropathology outcomes [e.g., Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage, Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD (CERAD) neuritic plaque, etc.]. The best-performing neuropathology predictors using the top seven MRI, clinical, and demographic features were selected. For continuous measures, gradient boosting, bagging, support vector regression, and linear regression were implemented. For binary outcomes, logistic regression, gradient boosting, support vector machine, and bagging classifiers were utilized. RESULTS: Four machine learning models applying feature ranking methods using similar information criteria consistently ranked WMHs as important features in predicting all neuropathology measures. In the ADNI dataset, prediction accuracy was highest for Braak stage, CERAD neuritic palques, and diffuse plaques (i.e., cross-validated correlation between actual measures and predictions was above 0.8). The best-performing model achieved over r = 0.85 correlation in predicting Braak. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the importance of WMHs as core features of AD and the benefits of using machine learning models that incorporate WMH burden in predicting AD-related neuropathologies. The use of machine learning may prove beneficial in early detection of AD.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→