Deep learning only by normal brain PET identify unheralded brain anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent deep learning models have shown remarkable accuracy for the diagnostic classification. However, they have limitations in clinical application due to the gap between the training cohorts and real-world data. We aimed to develop a model trained only by normal brain PET data with an unsupervised manner to identify an abnormality in various disorders as imaging data of the clinical routine. METHODS: Using variational autoencoder, a type of unsupervised learning, Abnormality Score was defined as how far a given brain image is from the normal data. The model was applied to FDG PET data of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and clinical routine FDG PET data for assessing behavioral abnormality and seizures. Accuracy was measured by the area under curve (AUC) of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve. We investigated whether deep learning has additional benefits with experts' visual interpretation to identify abnormal patterns. FINDINGS: The AUC of the ROC curve for differentiating AD was 0.90. The changes in cognitive scores from baseline to 2-year follow-up were significantly correlated with Abnormality Score at baseline. The AUC of the ROC curve for discriminating patients with various disorders from controls was 0.74. Experts' visual interpretation was helped by the deep learning model to identify abnormal patterns in 60% of cases initially not identified without the model. INTERPRETATION: We suggest that deep learning model trained only by normal data was applicable for identifying wide-range of abnormalities in brain diseases, even uncommon ones, proposing its possible use for interpreting real-world clinical data.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".