Alzheimer’s Disease Computer-Aided Diagnosis: Histogram-Based Analysis of Regional MRI Volumes for Feature Selection and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel fully automatic computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on supervised machine learning methods. The novelty of the approach, which is based on histogram analysis, is twofold: 1) a feature extraction process that aims to detect differences in brain regions of interest (ROIs) relevant for the recognition of subjects with AD and 2) an original greedy algorithm that predicts the severity of the effects of AD on these regions. This algorithm takes account of the progressive nature of AD that affects the brain structure with different levels of severity, i.e., the loss of gray matter in AD is found first in memory-related areas of the brain such as the hippocampus. Moreover, the proposed feature extraction process generates a reduced set of attributes which allows the use of general-purpose classification machine learning algorithms. In particular, the proposed feature extraction approach assesses the ROI image separability between classes in order to identify the ones with greater discriminant power. These regions will have the highest influence in the classification decision at the final stage. Several experiments were carried out on segmented magnetic resonance images from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) in order to show the benefits of the overall method. The proposed CAD system achieved competitive classification results in a highly efficient and straightforward way.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".