MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116906457 · doi:10.1002/alz70861_108662

Identifying Site‐Level Data Integrity Risks in Alzheimer’s Trials via Subject‐Level Heuristics and a Novel Machine Learning Framework

2025· article· en· W7116906457 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Geraci

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData integrityHeuristicsTrustworthinessScalabilityClinical trialPersonal IntegrityRisk assessmentComponent (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Undetected data integrity issues in Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials often appear as "paradoxical" participant profiles with atypical or implausible profiles that can distort efficacy signals and threaten the validity of study conclusions. A unique mathematically-augmented machine learning (MAML) framework was used to identify high-risk study sites based on patterns in subject-level medical history data, despite a small sample size of trial sites. METHODS: Using data from a trial evaluating treatment for mild to moderate AD, 1855 subject-level variables were transformed into 7816 site-level features by computing distributional summaries of subject medical data (min, mean, max) across 36 sites. Sponsor-provided site-risk labels were used to train classification models including large language models and several standard ML methods such as Random Forest and XGBoost (LLM/ML) in three scenarios: (1) LLM/ML on all raw features (2) LLM/ML on MAML-derived features (3) LLM/ML on MAML-derived features and learned site relabeling. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) assessed accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC due to the small sample size constraints. RESULTS: Scenario 3 achieved the highest predictive performance:XGBoost yielded an AUC of 0.99 (accuracy 0.89, sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.86). In contrast, Scenario 1 trained with all features peaked at an AUC of 0.25, underscoring the value of MAML's data-driven relabeling to uncover latent site-level risks. The MAML framework grouped all five known high-risk sites and nine additional sites into a high-risk group defined by 10 key variables, predominately anxiety-related. High-risk sites consistently displayed statistical deviations from the canonical AD symptomatology structure. CONCLUSION: Pre-randomization, baseline subject data, can effectively flag site integrity risks in AD clinical trials by detecting deviations from the standard spectrum of symptomologies via MAML. This deviation can be used to better evaluate clinical trial sites. Incorporating these insights into ongoing and future AD trials may enhance data quality, mitigate bias, and reinforce confidence in trial outcomes. IMPACT: Due to AD's clinical heterogeneity and overlap with neuropsychiatric symptoms, our scalable approach offers early detection of anomalous trial behavior, supporting more trustworthy efficacy assessments across AD and related psychiatric trials.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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