Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2505.05700

Bayesian shape-constrained regression for quantifying Alzheimer's disease biomarker progression

Abstract

Several biomarkers are hypothesized to indicate early stages of Alzheimer's disease, well before the cognitive symptoms manifest. Their precise relations to the disease progression, however, is poorly understood. This lack of understanding limits our ability to diagnose the disease and intervene effectively at early stages. To provide better understanding of the relation between the disease and biomarker progressions, we propose a novel modeling approach to quantify the biomarkers' trajectories as functions of age. Building on monotone regression splines, we introduce two additional shape constraints to incorporate structures informed by the current medical literature. First, we impose the regression curves to satisfy a vanishing derivative condition, reflecting the observation that changes in biomarkers generally plateau at early and late stages of the disease. Second, we enforce the regression curves to have a unique inflection point, which enhances interpretability of the estimated disease progression and facilitates assessment of temporal ordering among the biomarkers. We fit our shape-constrained regression model under Bayesian framework to take advantage of its ability to account for the heterogeneity in disease progression among individuals. When applied to the BIOCARD data, the model is able to capture asymmetry in the biomarkers' progressions while maintaining interpretability, yielding estimates of the curves with temporal ordering consistent with the existing scientific hypotheses.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingyuan Li, Zheyu Wang, Akihiko Nishimura. 2025-05-09. Bayesian shape-constrained regression for quantifying Alzheimer's disease biomarker progression. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05700

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗