The Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted MRI-Derived Structural Connectome in Evaluating Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Multi-Cohort Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T1-weighted MRI has been extensively used to extract imaging biomarkers and build classification models for differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from healthy controls, but only recently have brain connectome networks derived from diffusion-weighted MRI been used to model AD progression and various stages of disease such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI, as a possible prodromal stage of AD, has gained intense interest recently, since it may be used to assess risk factors for AD. Little work has been done to combine information from both white matter and gray matter, and it is unknown how much classification power the diffusion-weighted MRI-derived structural connectome could provide beyond information available from T1-weighted MRI. In this paper, we focused on investigating whether diffusion-weighted MRI-derived structural connectome can improve differentiating healthy controls subjects from those with MCI. Specifically, we proposed a novel feature-ranking method to build classification models using the most highly ranked feature variables to classify MCI with healthy controls. We verified our method on two independent cohorts including the second stage of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI2) database and the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database. Our results indicated that 1) diffusion-weighted MRI-derived structural connectome can complement T1-weighted MRI in the classification task; 2) the feature-rank method is effective because of the identified consistent T1-weighted MRI and network feature variables on ADNI2 and NACC. Furthermore, by comparing the top-ranked feature variables from ADNI2, NACC, and combined dataset, we concluded that cross-validation using independent cohorts is necessary and highly recommended.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".