Hypothesis testing of a change point during cognitive decline among Alzheimer's disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a statistical hypothesis test for detecting a change point over the course of cognitive decline among Alzheimer's disease patients. The model under the null hypothesis assumes a constant rate of cognitive decline over time and the model under the alternative hypothesis is a general bilinear model with an unknown change point. When the change point is unknown, however, the null distribution of the test statistics is not analytically tractable and has to be simulated by parametric bootstrap. When the alternative hypothesis that a change point exists is accepted, we propose an estimate of its location based on the Akaike's Information Criterion. We applied our method to a data set from the Neuropsychological Database Initiative by implementing our hypothesis testing method to analyze Mini Mental Status Exam scores based on a random-slope and random-intercept model with a bilinear fixed effect. Our result shows that despite large amount of missing data, accelerated decline did occur for MMSE among AD patients. Our finding supports the clinical belief of the existence of a change point during cognitive decline among AD patients and suggests the use of change point models for the longitudinal modeling of cognitive decline in AD research.
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 | 0.044 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".