Hippocampal grading provides higher Alzheimer’s Disease prediction accuracy than hippocampal volume
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Finding an early biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is essential to develop and implement early treatments. Much research has focused on using hippocampal volume to measure neurodegeneration in aging and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, a new method to measure hippocampal change, known as hippocampal grading, has shown enhanced predictive power in older adults. It is unknown whether this method can capture hippocampal changes at each progressive stage of AD better than hippocampal volume. The goal of this study was to determine if hippocampal grading is more strongly associated with group differences between normal controls (NC), early MCI (eMCI), late (lMCI), and AD than hippocampal volume. Methods Data from 1666 Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative older adults with baseline MRI scans were included in the first set of analyses (513 normal controls NC, 269 eMCI, 556 lMCI, and 328 AD). Sub-analyses were also completed using only those that were amyloid positive (N=834; 179 NC, 148 eMCI, 298 lMCI, and 209 AD). We compared seven different classification techniques to classify participants into their correct cohort using 10-fold cross-validation. The following classifiers were applied: support vector machines, decision trees, k-nearest neighbors, error-correcting output codes, binary Gaussian kernel, binary linear, and random forest. These multiple classifiers enable comparison to other research and examination of the most suitable classifier for Scoring by Nonlocal Image Patch Estimator (SNIPE) grading, SNIPE volume, and Freesurfer volume. This model was then validated in the Australian Imaging, Biomarker & Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing (AIBL). Results SNIPE grading provided the highest classification accuracy over SNIPE volume and Freesurfer volume for all classifications in both the full sample and amyloid positive sample. When classifying NC from AD, SNIPE grading provided an accuracy of 89% for the full sample and 87% for the amyloid positive group. Much lower accuracies of 65% and 46% were obtained when using Freesurfer in the full sample and amyloid positive sample, respectively. Similar accuracies were obtained in the AIBL validation cohort for SNIPE grading (NC vs AD: 90% classification accuracy). Conclusion These findings suggest that SNIPE grading offers increased prediction accuracy compared to both SNIPE volume and Freesurfer volume. SNIPE grading offers promise as a means to classify between people with and without AD. Future research is needed to determine the predictive power of grading at detecting conversion to MCI and AD in amyloid positive cognitively normal older adults (i.e., early in the AD continuum). Key points HC grading may better classify different disease cohorts than HC volume Higher prediction accuracy was obtained for HC grading than HC volume HC grading offers promise as a method to detect declines in aging and Alzheimer’s
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».