MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123995491 · doi:10.1111/jon.12835

Differentiating Dementia with Lewy Bodies and Alzheimer's Disease by Deep Learning to Structural MRI

2021· article· en· W3123995491 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroimaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesMedicineArtificial intelligenceDeep learningVoxelDementiaConvolutional neural networkAtrophyTemporal lobeVoxel-based morphometryPattern recognition (psychology)PathologyRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseWhite matterComputer sciencePsychiatryEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is the second most prevalent cause of degenerative dementia next to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Though current DLB diagnostic criteria employ several indicative biomarkers, relative preservation of the medial temporal lobe as revealed by structural MRI suffers from low sensitivity and specificity, making them unreliable as sole supporting biomarkers. In this study, we investigated how a deep learning approach would be able to differentiate DLB from AD with structural MRI data. METHODS: Two-hundred and eight patients (101 DLB, 69 AD, and 38 controls) participated in this retrospective study. Gray matter images were extracted using voxel-based morphometry (VBM). In order to compare the conventional statistical analysis with deep-learning feature extraction, we built a classification model for DLB and AD with a residual neural network (ResNet) type of convolutional neural network architecture, which is one of the deep learning models. The anatomically standardized gray matter images extracted in the same way as for the VBM process were used as inputs, and the classification performance achieved by our model was evaluated. RESULTS: Conventional statistical analysis detected no significant atrophy other than fine differences on the middle temporal pole and hippocampal regions. The feature extracted by the deep learning method differentiated DLB from AD with 79.15% accuracy compared to the 68.41% of the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that the deep learning method with gray matter images can detect fine differences between DLB and AD that may be underestimated by the conventional method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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