MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950062006 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2920448

Transfer Learning With Intelligent Training Data Selection for Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease

2019· article· en· W2950062006 on OpenAlexafffund
Naimul Khan, Nabila Abraham, Marcia Hon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsComputer scienceTransfer of learningSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningTraining (meteorology)DiseaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) from neuroimaging data such as MRI through machine learning has been a subject of intense research in recent years. The recent success of deep learning in computer vision has progressed such research. However, common limitations with such algorithms are reliance on a large number of training images, and the requirement of careful optimization of the architecture of deep networks. In this paper, we attempt solving these issues with transfer learning, where the state-of-the-art VGG architecture is initialized with pre-trained weights from large benchmark datasets consisting of natural images. The network is then fine-tuned with layer-wise tuning, where only a pre-defined group of layers are trained on MRI images. To shrink the training data size, we employ image entropy to select the most informative slices. Through experimentation on the ADNI dataset, we show that with the training size of 10 to 20 times smaller than the other contemporary methods, we reach the state-of-the-art performance in AD vs. NC, AD vs. MCI, and MCI vs. NC classification problems, with a 4% and a 7% increase in accuracy over the state-of-the-art for AD vs. MCI and MCI vs. NC, respectively. We also provide a detailed analysis of the effect of the intelligent training data selection method, changing the training size, and changing the number of layers to be fine-tuned. Finally, we provide class activation maps (CAM) that demonstrate how the proposed model focuses on discriminative image regions that are neuropathologically relevant and can help the healthcare practitioner in interpreting the model's decision-making process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations180
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207