An Efficient Combination among sMRI, CSF, Cognitive Score, and <i>APOE ε</i>4 Biomarkers for Classification of AD and MCI Using Extreme Learning Machine
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and a progressive neurodegenerative condition, characterized by a decline in cognitive function. Symptoms usually appear gradually and worsen over time, becoming severe enough to interfere with individual daily tasks. Thus, the accurate diagnosis of both AD and the prodromal stage (i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI)) is crucial for timely treatment. As AD is inherently dynamic, the relationship between AD indicators is unclear and varies over time. To address this issue, we first aimed at investigating differences in atrophic patterns between individuals with AD and MCI and healthy controls (HCs). Then we utilized multiple biomarkers, along with filter- and wrapper-based feature selection and an extreme learning machine- (ELM-) based approach, with 10-fold cross-validation for classification. Increasing efforts are focusing on the use of multiple biomarkers, which can be useful for the diagnosis of AD and MCI. However, optimum combinations have yet to be identified and most multimodal analyses use only volumetric measures obtained from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Anatomical structural MRI (sMRI) measures have also so far mostly been used separately. The full possibilities of using anatomical MRI for AD detection have thus yet to be explored. In this study, three measures (cortical thickness, surface area, and gray matter volume), obtained from sMRI through preprocessing for brain atrophy measurements; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), for quantification of specific proteins; cognitive score, as a measure of cognitive performance; and APOE ε 4 allele status were utilized. Our results show that a combination of specific biomarkers performs well, with accuracies of 97.31% for classifying AD vs. HC, 91.72% for MCI vs. HC, 87.91% for MCI vs. AD, and 83.38% for MCIs vs. MCIc, respectively, when evaluated using the proposed algorithm. Meanwhile, the areas under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves combining multiple biomarkers provided better classification performance. The proposed features combination and selection algorithm effectively classified AD and MCI, and MCIs vs. MCIc, the most challenging classification task, and therefore could increase the accuracy of AD classification in clinical practice. Furthermore, we compared the performance of the proposed method with SVM classifiers, using a cross-validation method with Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) datasets.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle