This preprint introduces an interpretable, hybrid pipeline called Neurosymodal Data Fusion that encodes the biomarker-based A/T/N framework for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) staging. The A/T/N system—amyloid (A), tau (T), and neurodegeneration (N)—is widely used in AD research as a biomarker-driven staging framework. Prior approaches typically fall into two camps: rule-based implementations that prioritize interpretability, and data-driven models that offer adaptivity but can sacrifice transparency. The authors propose a middle path that preserves interpretability while leveraging neural networks to extract biomarker features.
The pipeline implements the A/T/N framework as a logic program. Rather than treating the framework as a fixed rule-set only, the system accepts biomarker-derived features produced by one or more neural networks as inputs to the logic program. This design aims to retain a clear, interpretable mapping between biomarker profiles and clinical-stage logic while allowing the feature extraction step to adapt to patterns present in the dataset.
The core methodological concept is the separation of representation and reasoning: neural networks learn or extract continuous biomarker features from the ADNI dataset, and those features are consumed by a logic program that encodes the A/T/N taxonomy. By encoding the framework in logic, the authors maintain a human-interpretable rule-based scaffold; by using neural networks for input feature extraction, the system can adapt to empirical distributions and complex signal characteristics present in imaging and biomarker data.
The preprint positions this hybrid as an interpretable alternative to purely data-driven black-box models while avoiding the rigidity of strict rule-based biomarker cut-offs. Specifics of neural network architectures, training procedures, input modalities, sample sizes, and other implementation details were reported in the source but are not reproduced here beyond the summary form provided by the authors.
Applied to the ADNI dataset, the pipeline was used to predict incident AD over a four-year horizon. The authors report that their approach achieved a sensitivity of up to 0.84 for four-year incident AD prediction. The reported sensitivity reflects the model’s ability to correctly identify individuals who progressed to AD within four years in the ADNI cohort.
No additional performance metrics (for example, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, or overall accuracy) are summarized in the abstract. Details on cross-validation strategies, test set composition, or other performance thresholds are contained in the full manuscript but are not restated here beyond what the authors highlighted.
An additional output of the hybrid models was a set of learned scores for each A/T/N profile. These scores quantify the relative importance of different A/T/N profiles to model predictions. According to the authors, the learned profile scores suggested that empirically derived cut-off values for the A and T criteria may be uninformative for the ADNI dataset. In other words, rigid, pre-specified biomarker thresholds for amyloid and tau status used in some rule-based implementations might not align with the predictive signal present in ADNI.
The approach therefore enables an empirical assessment of which profiles and which biomarker ranges contribute most strongly to prediction, while preserving an interpretable mapping from profiles to predicted risk.
The authors propose that the pipeline provides a novel way to operationalize the A/T/N framework and that it could potentially improve early AD screening years before clinical manifestations. Because the method produces interpretable profile scores and retains an explicit A/T/N encoding, it may be useful for research contexts where both transparency and adaptivity are desirable.
However, the work is presented as a preprint on medRxiv and has not been peer reviewed. The authors explicitly note that the findings should not yet be used to guide clinical practice. The abstract does not provide exhaustive methodological details, full performance reporting across multiple metrics, or external validation beyond the ADNI cohort; those items would need to be assessed in the full manuscript and subsequent peer review.
The preprint includes author declarations that appropriate ethical guidelines and participant consents were obtained. Two authors (PG and LND) are current employees of Cancer Research UK Scotland Institute, and LND was employed by Lyzeum Ltd during the work; the institutions were stated as not affiliated with this research. All other authors declared no competing interests.
Funding sources disclosed include the University of Edinburgh, The Alan Turing Institute Enrichment Scheme, the NIHR Artificial Intelligence and Multimorbidity AIM-CISC grant (NIHR202639), and Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek grant 1154623N. The manuscript is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and is posted as a medRxiv preprint.
Note: This summary reflects details provided in the preprint abstract and front matter. The article is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; the full manuscript contains further methodological and result details that were not reproduced in the abstract.