Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38191721›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2024

Data-driven modelling of neurodegenerative disease progression: thinking outside the black box.

Alexandra L Young, Neil P Oxtoby, Sara Garbarino, Nick C Fox, Frederik Barkhof, Jonathan M Schott, Daniel C Alexander

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
30.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Brain-age in ultra-low-field MRI: How well does it work?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    Article
  17. LNODE: Uncovering the Latent Dynamics ofMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexandra L Young *UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK. alexandra.young@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7772-781X
Neil P Oxtoby *UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK. n.oxtoby@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0203-3909
Sara GarbarinoLife Science Computational Laboratory, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3583-3630
Nick C FoxDementia Research Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Frederik BarkhofUCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3543-3706
Jonathan M SchottDementia Research Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel C AlexanderUCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-350X
UK Dementia Research Institute · GBUniversity College London · GBOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUCL Biomedical Research Centre · GBWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S03546X/1Medical Research Council MR/T046422/1
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseNeurodegenerative DiseasesDisease ProgressionHumans

Identifiers

PMID38191721
OpenAlexW4390673774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.