MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566735941 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9915

Bagging Ensembles for the Diagnosis and Prognostication of Alzheimer's Disease

2016· article· en· W2566735941 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Dai, Femida Gwadry‐Sridhar, Michael Bauer, Michael Borrie

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsRandom forestSupport vector machineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceMachine learningCorrelationFeature (linguistics)DiseaseDecision treeRobustness (evolution)MedicineMathematicsPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease, which involves the degeneration of various brain functions, resulting in memory loss, cognitive disorder and death. Large amounts of multivariate heterogeneous medical test data are available for the analysis of brain deterioration. How to measure the deterioration remains a challenging problem. In this study, we first investigate how different regions of the human brain change as the patient develops AD. Correlation analysis and feature ranking are performed based on the feature vectors from different stages of the pathologic process in Alzheimer disease. Then, an automatic diagnosis system is presented, which is based on a hybrid manifold learning for feature embedding and the bootstrap aggregating (Bagging) algorithm for classification.We investigate two different tasks, i.e. diagnosis and progression prediction. Extensive comparison is made against Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT) and Random Subspace (RS) methods. Experimental results show that our proposed algorithm yields superior results when compared to the other methods, suggesting promising robustness for possible clinical applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207