Alzheimer's disease: 3‐Dimensional MRI texture for prediction of conversion from mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Currently, there are no tools that can accurately predict which patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Texture analysis uses image processing and statistical methods to identify patterns in voxel intensities that cannot be appreciated by visual inspection. Our main objective was to determine whether MRI texture could be used to predict conversion of MCI to AD. Methods A method of 3‐dimensional, whole‐brain texture analysis was used to compute texture features from T1‐weighted MR images. To assess predictive value, texture changes were compared between MCI converters and nonconverters over a 3‐year observation period. A predictive model using texture and clinical factors was used to predict conversion of patients with MCI to AD. This model was then tested on ten randomly selected test groups from the data set. Results Texture features were found to be significantly different between normal controls (n = 225), patients with MCI (n = 382), and patients with AD (n = 183). A subset of the patients with MCI were used to compare between MCI converters (n = 98) and nonconverters (n = 106). A composite model including texture features, APOE ‐ε4 genotype, Mini‐Mental Status Examination score, sex, and hippocampal occupancy resulted in an area under curve of 0.905. Application of the composite model to ten randomly selected test groups (nonconverters = 26, converters = 24) predicted MCI conversion with a mean accuracy of 76.2%. Discussion Early texture changes are detected in patients with MCI who eventually progress to AD dementia. Therefore, whole‐brain 3D texture analysis has the potential to predict progression of patients with MCI to AD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".