MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hybrid Feature Fusion Using RNN and Pre-trained CNN for Classification of Alzheimer's Disease (Poster)

2019· article· en· W3010821064 on OpenAlexaff
Emimal Jabason, M. Omair Ahmad, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningOverfittingConvolutional neural networkLeverage (statistics)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)NeuroimagingRecurrent neural networkArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate classification of AD is very essential for both patient and social care, and it will be more significant once the treatment options are available to reverse the progress of the disease. The recent success of deep learning techniques has rapidly advanced the automatic classification of AD using neuroimaging biomarkers such as MRI. However, there exist two major challenges. First, training a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) from scratch relies on a large number of labeled training data to obtain high accuracy without overfitting. Second, due to high computational cost, most of the existing techniques employ 2D CNN that cannot leverage the complete spatial information; hence, it loses the inter-slice correlation. To address these limitations, we combine a recurrent neural network (RNN), specifically long short-term memory (LSTM) on top of the bottleneck layer of pre-trained DenseNet architecture, a deep CNN has already been trained on a large-scale dataset called ImageNet. In addition to the intra-slice features extracted from the deep CNN, the proposed technique exploits the inter-slice features through LSTM in order to discriminate the patients having AD and cognitively normal (CN) clinical status from the brain MRI data. Through experimental results, we show that our proposed model has better performance than state-of-the-art deep learning methods on the Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS) dataset using 5-fold cross validation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207