Development of a machine learning algorithm to predict the residual cognitive reserve index

Abstract

Abstract Elucidating the mechanisms by which late-life neurodegeneration causes cognitive decline requires understanding why some individuals are more resilient than others to the effects of brain change on cognition (cognitive reserve). Currently, there is no way of measuring cognitive reserve that is valid (e.g. capable of moderating brain-cognition associations), widely accessible (e.g. does not require neuroimaging and large sample sizes), and able to provide insight into resilience-promoting mechanisms. To address these limitations, this study sought to determine whether a machine learning approach to combining standard clinical variables could (i) predict a residual-based cognitive reserve criterion standard and (ii) prospectively moderate brain-cognition associations. In a training sample combining data from the University of California (UC) Davis and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-2 (ADNI-2) cohort (N = 1665), we operationalized cognitive reserve using an MRI-based residual approach. An eXtreme Gradient Boosting machine learning algorithm was trained to predict this residual reserve index (RRI) using three models: Minimal (basic clinical data, such as age, education, anthropometrics, and blood pressure), Extended (Minimal model plus cognitive screening, word reading, and depression measures), and Full [Extended model plus Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and Everyday Cognition (ECog) scale]. External validation was performed in an independent sample of ADNI 1/3/GO participants (N = 1640), which examined whether the effects of brain change on cognitive change were moderated by the machine learning models’ cognitive reserve estimates. The three machine learning models differed in their accuracy and validity. The Minimal model did not correlate strongly with the criterion standard (r = 0.23) and did not moderate the effects of brain change on cognitive change. In contrast, the Extended and Full models were modestly correlated with the criterion standard (r = 0.49 and 0.54, respectively) and prospectively moderated longitudinal brain-cognition associations, outperforming other cognitive reserve proxies (education, word reading). The primary difference between the Minimal model—which did not perform well as a measure of cognitive reserve—and the Extended and Full models—which demonstrated good accuracy and validity—is the lack of cognitive performance and informant-report data in the Minimal model. This suggests that basic clinical variables like anthropometrics, vital signs, and demographics are not sufficient for estimating cognitive reserve. Rather, the most accurate and valid estimates of cognitive reserve were obtained when cognitive performance data—ideally augmented by informant-reported functioning—was used. These results indicate that a dynamic and accessible proxy for cognitive reserve can be generated for individuals without neuroimaging data and gives some insight into factors that may promote resilience.