Data-driven modelling of neurodegenerative disease progression: thinking outside the black box
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven disease progression models are an emerging set of computational tools that reconstruct disease timelines for long-term chronic diseases, providing unique insights into disease processes and their underlying mechanisms. Such methods combine a priori human knowledge and assumptions with large-scale data processing and parameter estimation to infer long-term disease trajectories from short-term data. In contrast to 'black box' machine learning tools, data-driven disease progression models typically require fewer data and are inherently interpretable, thereby aiding disease understanding in addition to enabling classification, prediction and stratification. In this Review, we place the current landscape of data-driven disease progression models in a general framework and discuss their enhanced utility for constructing a disease timeline compared with wider machine learning tools that construct static disease profiles. We review the insights they have enabled across multiple neurodegenerative diseases, notably Alzheimer disease, for applications such as determining temporal trajectories of disease biomarkers, testing hypotheses about disease mechanisms and uncovering disease subtypes. We outline key areas for technological development and translation to a broader range of neuroscience and non-neuroscience applications. Finally, we discuss potential pathways and barriers to integrating disease progression models into clinical practice and trial settings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".