MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906511676 · doi:10.1109/biocas.2018.8584844

Missing Structural and Clinical Features Imputation for Semi-supervised Alzheimer's Disease Classification using Stacked Sparse Autoencoder

2018· article· en· W2906511676 on OpenAlexaff
Emimal Jabason, M. Omair Ahmad, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Missing dataAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive impairmentNeuroimagingPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningDiseaseData miningArtificial neural networkMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the accurate detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) at its early stage, using various biomarkers through machine learning techniques, has been given paramount importance in the medical field. However, in reality, the input datasets contain lots of missing values due to several factors such as increasing mortality rate, avoiding invasive procedures, and dropping out from the study. In this work, after analyzing the pattern of structural and clinical data from tadpole study in Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) database, it has been found that the unobserved data are not missing completely at random. In view of this fact, with the assumption that the missing data patterns are in blocks, we propose a novel stacked sparse autoencoder based method to assign a value in the missing places and to select the significant structural and clinical features in order to discriminate the patients having AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and cognitively normal (CN) clinical status. Through experimental results, it is shown that the proposed imputation algorithm achieves better performance for semi-supervised AD classification in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in 5-fold cross validation when compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207