Neuroimaging computer‐aided diagnosis systems for Alzheimer's disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper has reviewed the state‐of‐the‐art approaches for Computer Aided Diagnosis Systems (CADS) for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using neuroimaging. Identification of the current approaches leads to improving the efficiency of these techniques. The analysis covered 110 articles published between 2009 and January 2018. Papers were chosen according to the Newcastle‐Ottawa criteria. MeSH terms were “computer aided diagnosis systems for Alzheimer's disease” and “computer aided diagnosis systems methods for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease”. CADS algorithms have been presented with specific methods. There is no standardized approach to determine the best one. This study has tables that aimed to conclude all methods in a precise way. Among them, Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) were the most common, respectively. CADS for AD could become important in clinical practice in the near future. The evaluation criteria approved their efficiency as a second opinion besides the neurologist.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it