DTI measurements for Alzheimer’s classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is a promising imaging technique that provides insight into white matter microstructure integrity and it has greatly helped identifying white matter regions affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) in its early stages. DTI can therefore be a valuable source of information when designing machine-learning strategies to discriminate between healthy control (HC) subjects, AD patients and subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Nonetheless, several studies have reported so far conflicting results, especially because of the adoption of biased feature selection strategies. In this paper we firstly analyzed DTI scans of 150 subjects from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) database. We measured a significant effect of the feature selection bias on the classification performance (p-value < 0.01), leading to overoptimistic results (10% up to 30% relative increase in AUC). We observed that this effect is manifest regardless of the choice of diffusion index, specifically fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity. Secondly, we performed a test on an independent mixed cohort consisting of 119 ADNI scans; thus, we evaluated the informative content provided by DTI measurements for AD classification. Classification performances and biological insight, concerning brain regions related to the disease, provided by cross-validation analysis were both confirmed on the independent test.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".