Identifying transition points in AD biomarkers using machine learning: A supplement to the reliable worsening method

Abstract Background Biomarker cutpoints have received significant importance in AD research. Reliable worsening method based on serial biomarker data has been proposed (Jack et al., 2017 Alz & Dem). Advanced machine learning models (ML) and explainable AI provide an opportunity to enhance existing techniques. We aimed to estimate biomarker cutpoints on cross‐sectional data using ML by identifying important transitions in the biomarker values. Method We first trained an ML model with the biomarker of interest as an input including other available biomarkers, demographics, and diagnosis, and predicted global cognition z‐score. We then obtained SHAP values (Shapley Additive exPlanations), fit a curve between the SHAP values and biomarker values, and calculated the first derivatives (slope) of the curve. Then, a CUSUM (Cumulative Sum) analysis was used to identify SHAP change points and cross‐referenced to values where the slopes were steepest near the zero‐crossing location of the curve. A zero SHAP is an important indicator of a feature’s progressive importance for model prediction because a feature’s influence on prediction significantly shifts when its SHAP values go from positive to negative or vice versa. However, relying on zero‐crossing alone may be insufficient when the relationship is non‐linear. Consequently, we calculated the second derivatives to identify inflection points (peaks and troughs) along the curve. Lastly, we compiled all the potential cutpoints and performed post‐processing as shown in Fig. 1. Result The algorithm identified cutpoints at 1.44 SUVR for all and at 1.42 SUVR for CU participants (Fig. 2). At age 70, both cutpoints estimated the percentage of abnormals at less than 40% (Fig. 3). Conclusion TPE amyloid‐PET SUVR cutpoints for CUs equal the reported RW values (1.42 SUVR). A strength of the TPE is its application on cross‐sectional data making it versatile for various biomarkers across different cohorts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.093902
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Identifying transition points in AD biomarkers using machine learning: A supplement to the reliable worsening method

Clifford R. Jack, Prashanthi Vemuri, Robel K Gebre
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
article

Identifying transition points in AD biomarkers using machine learning: A supplement to the reliable worsening method

Clifford R. Jack, Prashanthi Vemuri, Robel K Gebre
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Biomarker cutpoints have received significant importance in AD research. Reliable worsening method based on serial biomarker data has been proposed (Jack et al., 2017 Alz & Dem). Advanced machine learning models (ML) and explainable AI provide an opportunity to enhance existing techniques. We aimed to estimate biomarker cutpoints on cross‐sectional data using ML by identifying important transitions in the biomarker values. Method We first trained an ML model with the biomarker of interest as an input including other available biomarkers, demographics, and diagnosis, and predicted global cognition z‐score. We then obtained SHAP values (Shapley Additive exPlanations), fit a curve between the SHAP values and biomarker values, and calculated the first derivatives (slope) of the curve. Then, a CUSUM (Cumulative Sum) analysis was used to identify SHAP change points and cross‐referenced to values where the slopes were steepest near the zero‐crossing location of the curve. A zero SHAP is an important indicator of a feature’s progressive importance for model prediction because a feature’s influence on prediction significantly shifts when its SHAP values go from positive to negative or vice versa. However, relying on zero‐crossing alone may be insufficient when the relationship is non‐linear. Consequently, we calculated the second derivatives to identify inflection points (peaks and troughs) along the curve. Lastly, we compiled all the potential cutpoints and performed post‐processing as shown in Fig. 1. Result The algorithm identified cutpoints at 1.44 SUVR for all and at 1.42 SUVR for CU participants (Fig. 2). At age 70, both cutpoints estimated the percentage of abnormals at less than 40% (Fig. 3). Conclusion TPE amyloid‐PET SUVR cutpoints for CUs equal the reported RW values (1.42 SUVR). A strength of the TPE is its application on cross‐sectional data making it versatile for various biomarkers across different cohorts.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 20(S9)
Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.