MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145812136 · doi:10.3390/brainsci11040453

Diagnostic Classification and Biomarker Identification of Alzheimer’s Disease with Random Forest Algorithm

2021· article· en· W3145812136 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Minseok Song, Hyeyoom Jung, Seungyong Lee, Donghyeon Kim, Minkyu Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthServierHandong Global UniversityEisaiNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaBioClinicaNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenNational Research FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsRandom forestBiomarkerIdentification (biology)DiseaseAlgorithmAlzheimer's diseaseComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random Forest (RF) is a bagging ensemble model and has many important advantages, such as robustness to noise, an effective structure for complex multimodal data and parallel computing, and also provides important features that help investigate biomarkers. Despite these benefits, RF is not used actively to predict Alzheimer's disease (AD) with brain MRIs. Recent studies have reported RF's effectiveness in predicting AD, but the test sample sizes were too small to draw any solid conclusions. Thus, it is timely to compare RF with other learning model methods, including deep learning, particularly with large amounts of data. In this study, we tested RF and various machine learning models with regional volumes from 2250 brain MRIs: 687 normal controls (NC), 1094 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 469 AD that ADNI (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database) provided. Three types of features sets (63, 29, and 22 features) were selected, and classification accuracies were computed with RF, Support vector machine (SVM), Multi-layer perceptron (MLP), and Convolutional neural network (CNN). As a result, RF, MLP, and CNN showed high performances of 90.2%, 89.6%, and 90.5% with 63 features. Interestingly, when 22 features were used, RF showed the smallest decrease in accuracy, -3.8%, and the standard deviation did not change significantly, while MLP and CNN yielded decreases in accuracy of -6.8% and -4.5% with changes in the standard deviation from 3.3% to 4.0% for MLP and 2.1% to 7.0% for CNN, indicating that RF predicts AD more reliably with fewer features. In addition, we investigated the importance of the features that RF provides, and identified the hippocampus, amygdala, and inferior lateral ventricle as the major contributors in classifying NC, MCI, and AD. On average, AD showed smaller hippocampus and amygdala volumes and a larger volume of inferior lateral ventricle than those of MCI and NC.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207