Machine learning in Alzheimer’s disease genetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional statistical approaches have advanced our understanding of the genetics of complex diseases, yet are limited to linear additive models. Here we applied machine learning (ML) to genome-wide data from 41,686 individuals in the largest European consortium on Alzheimer's disease (AD) to investigate the effectiveness of various ML algorithms in replicating known findings, discovering novel loci, and predicting individuals at risk. We utilised Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs), biological pathway-informed Neural Networks (NNs), and Model-based Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MB-MDR) models. ML approaches successfully captured all genome-wide significant genetic variants identified in the training set and 22% of associations from larger meta-analyses. They highlight 6 novel loci which replicate in an external dataset, including variants which map to ARHGAP25, LY6H, COG7, SOD1 and ZNF597. They further identify novel association in AP4E1, refining the genetic landscape of the known SPPL2A locus. Our results demonstrate that machine learning methods can achieve predictive performance comparable to classical approaches in genetic epidemiology and have the potential to uncover novel loci that remain undetected by traditional GWAS. These insights provide a complementary avenue for advancing the understanding of AD genetics.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".