Detecting prodromal Alzheimer’s disease with MRI through deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Deep learning applied to MRI for Alzheimer’s classification is hypothesized to improve if the deep learning model implicates disease’s pathophysiology. The challenge in testing this hypothesis is that large-scale data are required to train this type of model. Here, we overcome this challenge by using a novel data augmentation strategy and show that our MRI-based deep learning model classifies Alzheimer’s dementia with high accuracy. Moreover, a class activation map was found dominated by signal from the hippocampal formation, a site where Alzheimer’s pathophysiology begins. Next, we tested the model’s performance in prodromal Alzheimer’s when patients present with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We retroactively dichotomized a large cohort of MCI patients who were followed for up to 10 years into those with and without prodromal Alzheimer’s at baseline and used the dementia-derived model to generate individual ‘deep learning MRI’ scores. We compared the two groups on these scores, and on other biomarkers of amyloid pathology, tau pathology, and neurodegeneration. The deep learning MRI scores outperformed nearly all other biomarkers, including—unexpectedly—biomarkers of amyloid or tau pathology, in classifying prodromal disease and in predicting clinical progression. Providing a mechanistic explanation, the deep learning MRI scores were found to be linked to regional tau pathology, through investigations using cross-sectional, longitudinal, premortem and postmortem data. Our findings validate that a disease’s known pathophysiology can improve the design and performance of deep learning models. Moreover, by showing that deep learning can extract useful biomarker information from conventional MRIs, the advantages of this model extend practically, potentially reducing patient burden, risk, and cost.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".