Sociodemographic data and APOE-ε4 augmentation for MRI-based detection of amnestic mild cognitive impairment using deep learning systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detection and diagnosis of early and subclinical stages of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) play an essential role in the implementation of intervention and prevention strategies. Neuroimaging techniques predominantly provide insight into anatomic structure changes associated with AD. Deep learning methods have been extensively applied towards creating and evaluating models capable of differentiating between cognitively unimpaired, patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and AD dementia. Several published approaches apply information fusion techniques, providing ways of combining several input sources in the medical domain, which contributes to knowledge of broader and enriched quality. The aim of this paper is to fuse sociodemographic data such as age, marital status, education and gender, and genetic data (presence of an apolipoprotein E (APOE)-ε4 allele) with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans. This enables enriched multi-modal features, that adequately represent the MRI scan visually and is adopted for creating and modeling classification systems capable of detecting amnestic MCI (aMCI). To fully utilize the potential of deep convolutional neural networks, two extra color layers denoting contrast intensified and blurred image adaptations are virtually augmented to each MRI scan, completing the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) color channels. Deep convolutional activation features (DeCAF) are extracted from the average pooling layer of the deep learning system Inception_v3. These features from the fused MRI scans are used as visual representation for the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) based Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) classification model. The proposed approach is evaluated on a sub-study containing 120 participants (aMCI = 61 and cognitively unimpaired = 59) of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall (HNR) Study with a baseline model accuracy of 76%. Further evaluation was conducted on the ADNI Phase 1 dataset with 624 participants (aMCI = 397 and cognitively unimpaired = 227) with a baseline model accuracy of 66.27%. Experimental results show that the proposed approach achieves 90% accuracy and 0.90 F1-Score at classification of aMCI vs. cognitively unimpaired participants on the HNR Study dataset, and 77% accuracy and 0.83 F1-Score on the ADNI dataset.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".