Detecting Alzheimer's Disease on Small Dataset: A Knowledge Transfer Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) is an attractive topic in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. Many algorithms are based on a relatively large training dataset. However, small hospitals are usually unable to collect sufficient training samples for robust classification. Although data sharing is expanding in scientific research, it is unclear whether a model based on one dataset is well suited for other data sources. Using a small dataset from a local hospital and a large shared dataset from the AD neuroimaging initiative, we conducted a heterogeneity analysis and found that different functional magnetic resonance imaging data sources show different sample distributions in feature space. In addition, we proposed an effective knowledge transfer method to diminish the disparity among different datasets and improve the classification accuracy on datasets with insufficient training samples. The accuracy increased by approximately 20% compared with that of a model based only on the original small dataset. The results demonstrated that the proposed approach is a novel and effective method for CAD in hospitals with only small training datasets. It solved the challenge of limited sample size in detection of AD, which is a common issue but lack of adequate attention. Furthermore, this paper sheds new light on effective use of multi-source data for neurological disease diagnosis.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".