MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406210400 · doi:10.1002/alz.092879

Performance of an AI‐based prediction model versus stratified thresholds using plasma biomarkers for biological staging of AD

2024· article· en· W4406210400 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Scop Madeiros, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Guilherme Bauer‐Negrini, Guilherme Povala, Bruna Bellaver, Cristiano Schaffer Aguzzoli, Carolina Soares, Hussein Zalzale, Markley Oliveira, Matheus Scarpatto Rodrigues, Sarah Abbas, Lívia Amaral, Cynthia Felix, Pampa Saha, Emma Patrice Ruppert, Devin J Fine, Juli Cehula, Madeleine Bloomquist, Firoza Z Lussier, Joseph Therriault, Cécile Tissot, Andréa L. Benedet, Nesrine Rahmouni, Dana Tudorascu, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Thomas K. Karikari, Lucas Porcello Schilling, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceCutoffReceiver operating characteristicMachine learningComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The potential clinical utility of plasma biomarkers for biological staging of AD demands definition and validation of cutoff values. Plasma ptau‐217 and GFAP have accurately predicted core pathological changes such as tau aggregation and amyloid (Aβ) deposition, being proposed as complementary biomarkers. Thus, we aim to test a staging framework with plasma GFAP and ptau‐217 using cuttof values to predict Aβ/Tau PET stages and compare its performance with an artificial intelligence (AI) prediction model. Methods We included 362 individuals from TRIAD cohort and classified by Aβ and Tau PET in 5 biological stages and in 3 PET simplified stages (Table 1), representing the gold‐standard. For the AI model, we performed feature selection of 12 variables (Figure 1A) and repeated the model removing lower importance variables until reaching highest accuracy. For the classic thresholding method, we selected plasma GFAP(Quanterix) and plasma ptau‐217(Janssen) and defined lower and higher thresholds with ROC curves for PET stages discrimination in cognitively impaired individuals. Plasma stages were then defined for 199 participants that had GFAP and ptau‐217 data (Figure 2A). Results Our study revealed that the AI Ensemble Boosted Trees model was the most accurate in distinguishing PET simplified stages, utilizing 6 key variables (Figure 1). Through 5‐fold cross‐validation, the model achieved a validation AUC of 0.91 for predicting stage‐2 and 0.83 for stage‐0, with a consistent test AUC of 0.94 for both stages. Notably, plasma ptau‐217 emerged as the most significant predictor among the ptau‐x variables, closely followed by GFAP (Figure 1). Our analysis using plasma thresholds for GFAP and ptau‐217 (Figure 2A) yielded AUCs of 0.78 for stage‐0 and 0.85 for stage‐2 predictions. A comparative assessment of confusion matrices showed similar accuracies (Figure 2B). Importantly, our threshold‐based classification accurately detected 96% of early/stage‐1 cases as positive and correctly avoided any misclassification of late/stage‐2 cases as stage‐0. Conclusions Our threshold‐based framework, which utilizes plasma GFAP and ptau‐217, exhibits potential for the biological staging of AD, having achieved comparable accuracy to AI‐based methods that employ multiple plasma biomarkers and demographics to detect PET stages. This framework is straightforward, relies solely on two blood biomarkers and clinically‐stratified thresholds, and holds promise for implementation in clinical practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207