MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076160518 · doi:10.3389/fncom.2014.00156

Spatial component analysis of MRI data for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: a Bayesian network approach

2014· article· en· W2076160518 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Juan M. Gà rriz, Javier Ramírez, Anke Meyer‐Baese

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOServierMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónEisaiBioClinicaSynarcAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsMedpaceBiogenNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyF. Hoffmann-La RocheAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsBayesian probabilityComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceBayesian networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a spatial-component (SC) based approach to aid the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using magnetic resonance images. In this approach, the whole brain image is subdivided in regions or spatial components, and a Bayesian network is used to model the dependencies between affected regions of AD. The structure of relations between affected regions allows to detect neurodegeneration with an estimated performance of 88% on more than 400 subjects and predict neurodegeneration with 80% accuracy, supporting the conclusion that modeling the dependencies between components increases the recognition of different patterns of brain degeneration in AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Computational NeuroscienceSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207