Predicting Amyloid Pathology in Mild Cognitive Impairment Using Radiomics Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive identification of amyloid-β (Aβ) is important for better clinical management of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether radiomics features in the hippocampus in MCI improve the prediction of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42 status when integrated with clinical profiles. METHODS: A total of 407 MCI subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were allocated to training (n = 324) and test (n = 83) sets. Radiomics features (n = 214) from the bilateral hippocampus were extracted from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A cut-off of <192 pg/mL was applied to define CSF Aβ42 status. After feature selection, random forest with subsampling methods were utilized to develop three models with which to predict CSF Aβ42: 1) a radiomics model; 2) a clinical model based on clinical profiles; and 3) a combined model based on radiomics and clinical profiles. The prediction performances thereof were validated in the test set. A prediction model using hippocampus volume was also developed and validated. RESULTS: The best-performing radiomics model showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.674 in the test set. The best-performing clinical model showed an AUC of 0.758 in the test set. The best-performing combined model showed an AUC of 0.823 in the test set. The hippocampal volume model showed a lower performance, with an AUC of 0.543 in the test set. CONCLUSION: Radiomics models from MRI can help predict CSF Aβ42 status in MCI patients and potentially triage the patients for invasive and costly Aβ tests.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".