Machine learning analyses identify multi-modal frailty factors that selectively discriminate four cohorts in the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum: a COMPASS-ND study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Frailty indicators can operate in dynamic amalgamations of disease conditions, clinical symptoms, biomarkers, medical signals, cognitive characteristics, and even health beliefs and practices. This study is the first to evaluate which, among these multiple frailty-related indicators, are important and differential predictors of clinical cohorts that represent progression along an Alzheimer’s disease (AD) spectrum. We applied machine-learning technology to such indicators in order to identify the leading predictors of three AD spectrum cohorts; viz., subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD. The common benchmark was a cohort of cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults. Methods The four cohorts were from the cross-sectional Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia dataset. We used random forest analysis (Python 3.7) to simultaneously test the relative importance of 83 multi-modal frailty indicators in discriminating the cohorts. We performed an explainable artificial intelligence method (Tree Shapley Additive exPlanation values) for deep interpretation of prediction effects. Results We observed strong concurrent prediction results, with clusters varying across cohorts. The SCI model demonstrated excellent prediction accuracy (AUC = 0.89). Three leading predictors were poorer quality of life ([QoL]; memory), abnormal lymphocyte count, and abnormal neutrophil count. The MCI model demonstrated a similarly high AUC (0.88). Five leading predictors were poorer QoL (memory, leisure), male sex, abnormal lymphocyte count, and poorer self-rated eyesight. The AD model demonstrated outstanding prediction accuracy (AUC = 0.98). Ten leading predictors were poorer QoL (memory), reduced olfaction, male sex, increased dependence in activities of daily living (n = 6), and poorer visual contrast. Conclusions Both convergent and cohort-specific frailty factors discriminated the AD spectrum cohorts. Convergence was observed as all cohorts were marked by lower quality of life (memory), supporting recent research and clinical attention to subjective experiences of memory aging and their potentially broad ramifications. Diversity was displayed in that, of the 14 leading predictors extracted across models, 11 were selectively sensitive to one cohort. A morbidity intensity trend was indicated by an increasing number and diversity of predictors corresponding to clinical severity, especially in AD. Knowledge of differential deficit predictors across AD clinical cohorts may promote precision interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".