Hippocampal Subregion and Gene Detection in Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Genetic Clustering Random Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distinguishable subregions that compose the hippocampus are differently involved in functions associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Thus, the identification of hippocampal subregions and genes that classify AD and healthy control (HC) groups with high accuracy is meaningful. In this study, by jointly analyzing the multimodal data, we propose a novel method to construct fusion features and a classification method based on the random forest for identifying the important features. Specifically, we construct the fusion features using the gene sequence and subregions correlation to reduce the diversity in same group. Moreover, samples and features are selected randomly to construct a random forest, and genetic algorithm and clustering evolutionary are used to amplify the difference in initial decision trees and evolve the trees. The features in resulting decision trees that reach the peak classification are the important “subregion gene pairs”. The findings verify that our method outperforms well in classification performance and generalization. Particularly, we identified some significant subregions and genes, such as hippocampus amygdala transition area (HATA), fimbria, parasubiculum and genes included RYR3 and PRKCE. These discoveries provide some new candidate genes for AD and demonstrate the contribution of hippocampal subregions and genes to AD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".