ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Deep learning to predict rapid progression of Alzheimer's disease from pooled clinical trials: A retrospective study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- AutoRADP: An Interpretable Deep Learning Framework to Predict Rapid Progression for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Using Electronic Health Records.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Scoping the Landscape of Deep Learning for Alzheimer's Disease Stage Classification: Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities.BME frontiers · 2025Review
- Clinical outcome-guided deep temporal clustering for disease progression subtyping.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The rate of progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) differs dramatically between patients. Identifying the most is critical because when their numbers differ between treated and control groups, it distorts the outcome, making it impossible to tell whether the treatment was beneficial. Much recent effort, then, has gone into identifying RPs. We pooled de-identified placebo-arm data of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), EXPEDITION, EXPEDITION 2, and EXPEDITION 3, provided by Eli Lilly and Company. After processing, the data included 1603 mild-to-moderate AD patients with 80 weeks of longitudinal observations on neurocognitive health, brain volumes, and amyloid-beta (Aβ) levels. RPs were defined by changes in four neurocognitive/functional health measures. We built deep learning models using recurrent neural networks with attention mechanisms to predict RPs by week 80 based on varying observation periods from baseline (e.g., 12, 28 weeks). Feature importance scores for RP prediction were computed and temporal feature trajectories were compared between RPs and non-RPs. Our evaluation and analysis focused on models trained with 28 weeks of observation. The models achieved robust internal validation area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROCs) ranging from 0.80 (95% CI 0.79-0.82) to 0.82 (0.81-0.83), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRCs) from 0.34 (0.32-0.36) to 0.46 (0.44-0.49). External validation AUROCs ranged from 0.75 (0.70-0.81) to 0.83 (0.82-0.84) and AUPRCs from 0.27 (0.25-0.29) to 0.45 (0.43-0.48). Aβ plasma levels, regional brain volumetry, and neurocognitive health emerged as important factors for the model prediction. In addition, the trajectories were stratified between predicted RPs and non-RPs based on factors such as ventricular volumes and neurocognitive domains. Our findings will greatly aid clinical trialists in designing tests for new medications, representing a key step toward identifying effective new AD therapies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.