Longitudinal deformation models, spatial regularizations and learning strategies to quantify Alzheimer's disease progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of Alzheimer's disease, two challenging issues are (1) the characterization of local hippocampal shape changes specific to disease progression and (2) the identification of mild-cognitive impairment patients likely to convert. In the literature, (1) is usually solved first to detect areas potentially related to the disease. These areas are then considered as an input to solve (2). As an alternative to this sequential strategy, we investigate the use of a classification model using logistic regression to address both issues (1) and (2) simultaneously. The classification of the patients therefore does not require any a priori definition of the most representative hippocampal areas potentially related to the disease, as they are automatically detected. We first quantify deformations of patients' hippocampi between two time points using the large deformations by diffeomorphisms framework and transport these deformations to a common template. Since the deformations are expected to be spatially structured, we perform classification combining logistic loss and spatial regularization techniques, which have not been explored so far in this context, as far as we know. The main contribution of this paper is the comparison of regularization techniques enforcing the coefficient maps to be spatially smooth (Sobolev), piecewise constant (total variation) or sparse (fused LASSO) with standard regularization techniques which do not take into account the spatial structure (LASSO, ridge and ElasticNet). On a dataset of 103 patients out of ADNI, the techniques using spatial regularizations lead to the best classification rates. They also find coherent areas related to the disease progression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".