MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Delta-KNN: Improving Demonstration Selection in In-Context Learning for Alzheimer’s Disease Detection

2025· preprint· en· W4412889972 on OpenAlexafffund
Chuyuan Li, Raymond Li, Thalia S. Field, Giuseppe Carenini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceDiseaseDeltaArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMedicineEngineeringBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that leads to dementia, and early intervention can greatly benefit from analyzing linguistic abnormalities.In this work, we explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) as health assistants for AD diagnosis from patient-generated text using in-context learning (ICL), where tasks are defined through a few input-output examples.Empirical results reveal that conventional ICL methods, such as similarity-based selection, perform poorly for AD diagnosis, likely due to the inherent complexity of this task.To address this, we introduce Delta-KNN, a novel demonstration selection strategy that enhances ICL performance.Our method leverages a delta score to assess the relative gains of each training example, coupled with a KNN-based retriever that dynamically selects optimal "representatives" for a given input.Experiments on two AD detection datasets across three opensource LLMs demonstrate that Delta-KNN consistently outperforms existing ICL baselines.Notably, when using the Llama-3.1 model, our approach achieves new state-of-the-art results, surpassing even supervised classifiers. 1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207