MRI-Based Automated Computer Classification of Probable AD Versus Normal Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated computer classification (ACC) techniques are needed to facilitate physician's diagnosis of complex diseases in individual patients. We provide an example of ACC using computational techniques within the context of cross-sectional analysis of magnetic resonance images (MRI) in neurodegenerative diseases, namely Alzheimer's dementia (AD). In this paper, the accuracy of our ACC methodology is assessed when presented with real life, imperfect data, i.e., cohorts of MRI with varying acquisition parameters and imaging quality. The comparative methodology uses the Jacobian determinants derived from dense deformation fields and scaled grey-level intensity from a selected volume of interest centered on the medial temporal lobe. The ACC performance is assessed in a series of leave-one-out experiments aimed at separating 75 probable AD and 75 age-matched normal controls. The resulting accuracy is 92% using a support vector machine classifier based on least squares optimization. Finally, it is shown in the Appendix that determinants and scaled grey-level intensity are appreciably more robust to varying parameters in validation studies using simulated data, when compared to raw intensities or grey/white matter volumes. The ability of cross-sectional MRI at detecting probable AD with high accuracy could have profound implications in the management of suspected AD candidates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".