Automatic classification of major depression disorder using arterial spin labeling MRI perfusion measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Neuroimaging-based multivariate pattern-recognition methods have been successfully used to develop diagnostic algorithms to distinguish patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) from healthy controls (HC). We developed and evaluated the accuracy of a multivariate classification method for the differentiation of MDD and HC using cerebral blood flow (CBF) features measured by non-invasive arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI. METHODS: Twenty-two medication-free patients with the diagnosis of MDD based on DSM-IV criteria and 22 HC underwent pseudo-continuous 3-D-ASL imaging to assess CBF. Using an atlas-based approach, regional CBF was determined in various brain regions and used together with sex and age as classification features. A linear kernel support vector machine was used for feature ranking and selection as well as for the classification of patients with MDD and HC. Permutation testing was used to test for significance of the classification results. RESULTS: The automatic classifier based on CBF features showed a statistically significant accuracy of 77.3% (P = 0.004) with a specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 75% for classification of MDD versus HC. The features that contributed to the classification were sex and regional CBF of the cortical, limbic, and paralimbic regions. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning models based on CBF measurements are capable of differentiating MDD from HC with high accuracy. The use of larger study cohorts and inclusion of other imaging measures may improve the performance of the classifier to achieve the accuracy required for clinical application.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".