Evaluation of Brain Tortuosity Measurement for the Automatic Multimodal Classification of Subjects with Alzheimer’s Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 3D tortuosity determined in several brain areas is proposed as a new morphological biomarker (BM) to be considered in early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). It is measured using the sum of angles method and it has proven to be sensitive to anatomical changes that appear in gray and white matter and temporal and parietal lobes during mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Statistical analysis showed significant differences (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo><</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>) between tortuosity indices determined for healthy controls (HC) vs. MCI and HC vs. AD in most of the analyzed structures. Other clinically used BMs have also been incorporated in the analysis: beta-amyloid and tau protein CSF and plasma concentrations, as well as other image-extracted parameters. A classification strategy using random forest (RF) algorithms was implemented to discriminate between three samples of the studied populations, selected from the ADNI database. Classification rates considering only image-extracted parameters show an increase of 9.17%, when tortuosity is incorporated. An enhancement of 1.67% is obtained when BMs measured from several modalities are combined with tortuosity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it