Blinded Clinical Evaluation for Dementia of Alzheimer’s Type Classification Using FDG-PET: A Comparison Between Feature-Engineered and Non-Feature-Engineered Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced machine learning methods can aid in the identification of dementia risk using neuroimaging-derived features including FDG-PET. However, to enable the translation of these methods and test their usefulness in clinical practice, it is crucial to conduct independent validation on real clinical samples, which has yet to be properly delineated in the current literature. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we present our efforts to enable such clinical translational through the evaluation and comparison of two machine-learning methods for discrimination between dementia of Alzheimer's type (DAT) and Non-DAT controls. METHODS: FDG-PET-based dementia scores were generated on an independent clinical sample whose clinical diagnosis was blinded to the algorithm designers. A feature-engineered approach (multi-kernel probability classifier) and a non-feature-engineered approach (3D convolutional neural network) were analyzed. Both classifiers were pre-trained on cognitively normal subjects as well as subjects with DAT. These two methods provided a probabilistic dementia score for this previously unseen clinical data. Performance of the algorithms were compared against ground-truth dementia rating assessed by experienced nuclear physicians. RESULTS: Blinded clinical evaluation on both classifiers showed good separation between the cognitively normal subjects and the patients diagnosed with DAT. The non-feature-engineered dementia score showed higher sensitivity among subjects whose diagnosis was in agreement between the machine-learning models, while the feature-engineered approach showed higher specificity in non-consensus cases. CONCLUSION: In this study, we demonstrated blinded evaluation using data from an independent clinical sample for assessing the performance in DAT classification models in a clinical setting. Our results showed good generalizability for two machine-learning approaches, marking an important step for the translation of pre-trained machine-learning models into clinical practice.
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 | 0.032 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".