Search

Recent research aimed at the discovery, integration, and communication of health outcome measures (or "biomarkers") in Alzheimer's disease has raised challenging questions related to whether, how and when results from these investigations should be disclosed to research participants. Reflecting the apparent heterogeneity of many neurodegenerative diseases, biomarker or other risk factor results are often probabilistic, interactive, multi-modal, and selective. Such characteristics make it very complex to summarize and communicate to clinicians, researchers, and research participants. Whereas the format and content of academic literature is well-managed by the peer-review process, reporting individualized results to participants involves complex, sensitive, and ethical considerations. This paper describes three key factors to consider in decisions about the return of results to research participants: complexity, precision, and responsibility. The paper also presents six practical recommendations for implementing meaningful and ethical communication with research participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term ‘dementia’ covers a range of progressive brain diseases from which many elderly people suffer. Traditional cognitive and pathological tests are currently used to detect dementia, however, applications using Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods have recently shown improved results from improved detection accuracy and efficiency. This research paper investigates the efficacy of one type of data analytics called supervised learning to detect Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – a common dementia condition. The aim is to evaluate cognitive tests and common biological markers (biomarkers) such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to develop predictive classification systems for dementia detection. A data analytics process has been proposed, implemented, and tested against real data obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) repository. The models showed good power in predicting AD levels, notably from specified cognitive tests’ scores and tauopathy related features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]