MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884177016 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2018.2857217

Multilevel Feature Representation of FDG-PET Brain Images for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease

2018· article· en· W2884177016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute on AgingSolve ME/CFS InitiativeNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)Computer scienceMajority ruleNeuroimagingPositron emission tomographyFeature selectionMedicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a single imaging modality to diagnose Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a challenging task. FluoroDeoxyGlucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) is an important and effective modality used for that purpose. In this paper, we develop a novel method by using single modality (FDG-PET) but multilevel feature, which considers both region properties and connectivities between regions to classify AD or MCI from normal control. First, three levels of features are extracted: statistical, connectivity, and graph-based features. Then, the connectivity features are decomposed into three different sets of features according to a proposed similarity-driven ranking method, which can not only reduce the feature dimension but also increase the classifier's diversity. Last, after feeding the three levels of features to different classifiers, a new classifier selection strategy, maximum Mean squared Error (mMsE), is developed to select a pair of classifiers with high diversity. In order to do the majority voting, a decision-making scheme, a nested cross validation technique is applied to choose another classifier according to the accuracy. Experiments on Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database show that the proposed method outperforms most FDG-PET-based classification algorithms, especially for classifying progressive MCI (pMCI) from stable MCI (sMCI).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.288 · 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