MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592343442 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173372

Prediction and classification of Alzheimer disease based on quantification of MRI deformation

2017· article· en· W2592343442 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiaojing Long, Lifang Chen, Chunxiang Jiang, Lijuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthServierNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEisaiGenentechPfizerBiogenBioClinicaAlzheimer's AssociationAmorfix Life SciencesF. Hoffmann-La RocheMedpaceAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationSynarcBayer HealthCareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingAlzheimer's diseaseDiseaseDeformation (meteorology)MedicinePathologyRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting early morphological changes in the brain and making early diagnosis are important for Alzheimer's disease (AD). High resolution magnetic resonance imaging can be used to help diagnosis and prediction of the disease. In this paper, we proposed a machine learning method to discriminate patients with AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from healthy elderly and to predict the AD conversion in MCI patients by computing and analyzing the regional morphological differences of brain between groups. Distance between each pair of subjects was quantified from a symmetric diffeomorphic registration, followed by an embedding algorithm and a learning approach for classification. The proposed method obtained accuracy of 96.5% in differentiating mild AD from healthy elderly with the whole-brain gray matter or temporal lobe as region of interest (ROI), 91.74% in differentiating progressive MCI from healthy elderly and 88.99% in classifying progressive MCI versus stable MCI with amygdala or hippocampus as ROI. This deformation-based method has made full use of the pair-wise macroscopic shape difference between groups and consequently increased the power for discrimination.

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)0.000
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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.099 · 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

Citations181
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207