Cited by 68Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution (TADPOLE) Challenge: Results after 1 Year Follow-up

Open access
Marinescu, Razvan V., Oxtoby, Neil P., Young, Alexandra L., Bron, Esther E., Toga, Arthur W., Weiner, Michael W., Barkhof, Frederik, Fox, Nick C. +90 more·2021·Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging

Abstract

Accurate prediction of progression in subjects at risk of Alzheimer's disease is crucial for enrolling the right subjects in clinical trials. However, a prospective comparison of state-of-the-art algorithms for predicting disease onset and progression is currently lacking. We present the findings of "The Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution" (TADPOLE) Challenge, which compared the performance of 92 algorithms from 33 international teams at predicting the future trajectory of 219 individuals at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Challenge participants were required to make a prediction, for each month of a 5-year future time period, of three key outcomes: clinical diagnosis, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subdomain (ADAS-Cog13), and total volume of the ventricles. The methods used by challenge participants included multivariate linear regression, machine learning methods such as support vector machines and deep neural networks, as well as disease progression models. No single submission was best at predicting all three outcomes. For clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume prediction, the best algorithms strongly outperform simple baselines in predictive ability. However, for ADAS-Cog13 no single submitted prediction method was significantly better than random guesswork. Two ensemble methods based on taking the mean and median over all predictions, obtained top scores on almost all tasks. Better than average performance at diagnosis prediction was generally associated with the additional inclusion of features from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). On the other hand, better performance at ventricle volume prediction was associated with inclusion of summary statistics, such as the slope or maxima/minima of patient-specific biomarkers. On a limited, cross-sectional subset of the data emulating clinical trials, performance of the best algorithms at predicting clinical diagnosis decreased only slightly (2 percentage points) compared to the full longitudinal dataset. The submission system remains open via the website https://tadpole.grand-challenge.org, while TADPOLE SHARE (https://tadpole-share.github.io/) collates code for submissions. TADPOLE's unique results suggest that current prediction algorithms provide sufficient accuracy to exploit biomarkers related to clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume, for cohort refinement in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease. However, results call into question the usage of cognitive test scores for patient selection and as a primary endpoint in clinical trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.59275/j.melba.2021-2dcc

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Community benchmarking initiatives like the DREAM Alzheimer's Big Data Challenge and the TADPOLE forecast competition have revealed that many high-performing algorithms do not generalize well to new datasets.

    “Community benchmarking initiatives like the DREAM Alzheimer's Big Data Challenge and the TADPOLE forecast competition have underscored the necessity of rigorous external validation, revealing that many high-performing algorithms do not generalize well to new datasets408.”
  • Benchmarking efforts, including the DREAM Alzheimer's Big Data Challenge, have revealed that many models perform well on internal data but fail to generalize to unseen datasets.

    “Benchmarking efforts, including the DREAM Alzheimer's Big Data Challenge, have revealed that many models perform well on internal data but fail to generalize to unseen datasets, highlighting the necessity of transparent head-to-head comparisons against simple baseline models408.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marinescu, R. V., Oxtoby, N. P., Young, A. L., Bron, E. E., Toga, A. W., Weiner, M. W., Barkhof, F., Fox, N. C., Eshaghi, A., Toni, T., Salaterski, M., Lunina, V., Ansart, M., Durrleman, S., Lu, P., Iddi, S., Li, D., Thompson, W. K., Donohue, M. C., Nahon, A., Levy, Y., Halbersberg, D., Cohen, M., Liao, H., Li, T., Yu, K., Zhu, H., Tamez-Peña, J. G., Ismail, A., Wood, T., Bravo, H. C., Nguyen, M., Sun, N., Feng, J., Yeo, B. T. T., Chen, G., Qi, K., Chen, S., Qiu, D., Buciuman, I., Kelner, A., Pop, R., Rimocea, D., Ghazi, M. M., Nielsen, M., Ourselin, S., Sørensen, L., Venkatraghavan, V., Liu, K., Rabe, C., Manser, P., Hill, S. M., Howlett, J., Huang, Z., Kiddle, S., Mukherjee, S., Rouanet, A., Taschler, B., Tom, B. D. M., White, S. R., Faux, N., Sedai, S., de Velasco Oriol, J., Clemente, E. E. V., Estrada, K., Aksman, L., Altmann, A., Stonnington, C. M., Wang, Y., Wu, J., Devadas, V., Fourrier, C., Raket, L. L., Sotiras, A., Erus, G., Doshi, J., Davatzikos, C., Vogel, J., Doyle, A., Tam, A., Diaz-Papkovich, A., Jammeh, E., Koval, I., Moore, P., Lyons, T. J., Gallacher, J., Tohka, J., Ciszek, R., Jedynak, B., Pandya, K., Bilgel, M., Engels, W., Cole, J., Golland, P., Klein, S., Alexander, D. C., The EuroPOND Consortium, & Initiative, T. A. D. N.
Affiliations
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • UK Dementia Research Institute (GB)
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
  • Author not affiliated with any research institution
  • Institut du Cerveau (FR)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA
  • Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park, USA
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Vasile Lucaciu National College, Baia Mare, Romania
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK
  • Genentech (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DE)
  • IBM Research - Australia (AU)
  • Tecnológico de Monterrey (MX)
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, UK
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Banner Alzheimer’s Institute (US)
  • Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, Paris, France
  • H. Lundbeck A/S, Denmark
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics, University of Pennsylvania
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Portland State University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging
Published
2021-12-31
Volume
2021
Issue
December 2021
Pages
1-60
ISSN
2766-905X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005163827
Cited by
68
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5
FWCI
8.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEF eRepo (University of Eastern Finland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DZNE Pub (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1624776, W81XWH-12-2-0012, U01 AG024904)
  • U.S. Department of Defense (U01 AG024904, W81XWH, W81XWH-12-2-, W81XWH-12, W81XWH1220012, AG024904)
  • Alzheimer's Association (U01 AG024904, W81XWH-12-2-0012)
  • Portland State University
  • Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (W81XWH-12-2–0012, U01AG024904, AG024904, W81XWH-12-2-, Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012)
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (115952)
  • UK Research and Innovation (MR/S03546X/1, MRC MR/S03546X/1, EP/L016478/1)
  • Alzheimer's Society
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (115952, MR/S03546X/1, U01 AG024904)
  • European Commission (U01 AG024904, 721820, 115952, 666992, HORIZON2020, W81XWH-12-2-0012)
  • National Research Foundation (W81XWH-12-2-0012, U01 AG024904)
  • National Research Foundation Singapore
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Direktoratet for internasjonalisering og kvalitetsutvikling i høgare utdanning
  • Medical Delta
  • National Institutes of Health (3u01ag024904-10s2, W81XWH, W81XWH-12-2-0012, AG054409, U01-AG024904, Grant U01 AG024904, AG010483, AG024904, NIBIB NAC P41EB015902)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S03546X/1, U01 AG024904)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L016478/1, EP/J020990/01, EP/M020533/1, U01 AG024904, J020990, M006093, M020533)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01-AG-024904, W81XWH-12-2–0012, AG 010483, AG 024904, U19AG010483, R01AG054409)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS086905)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB015902, W81XWH-12-2-0012, NAC P41EB015902, U01 AG024904, AG024904)
  • EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Medical Imaging (EP/L016478/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, disease progression prediction, clinical trial participant selection, ventricular volume, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, diffusion tensor imaging, ensemble forecasting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review