MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Evaluation of Machine Learning Classifiers for Prediction of Alzheimer's Disease, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Normal Cognition

2021· article· en· W4200042763 on OpenAlexaff
Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Sara Hosseinzadeh Kassani, Yeshin Kim, Cheol‐Heui Yun, Seong Hye Choi, Jae‐Won Jang

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsDementiaMachine learningNaive Bayes classifierArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineRandom forestDecision treeComputer scienceDiseaseCognitionAlzheimer's diseaseStatistical classificationLogistic regressionSupervised learningMedicineArtificial neural networkPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia has a negative impact on global healthcare that has become a serious concern worldwide. The most common cause, Alzheimer's disease, underlies the majority of dementia. The identification and accurate prediction of Alzheimer's disease in its initial stage is most critical, of which has several important practical applications. However, a reliable diagnosis remains a challenging task and requires a combination of methods based on important clinical information. Developing computer-aided diagnosis systems to support early Alzheimer's disease detection is essential for effective treatment planning. In this study, a nationwide cohort dataset, the Korean Brain Aging Study for the Early diagnosis and prediction of Alzheimer's disease is classified by using eight state-of-the-art supervised machine learning algorithms namely Support Vector Machine, Naive Bayes, XGBoost, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Bagging and AdaBoost. The best performing model appeared to be the XGBoost classifier yielding an accuracy of 82.09%. Thus, the present research shows that the application of the machine learning model to the KBASE dataset will offer an efficient clinical classification of cognitively normal control individuals, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease patients and provides a framework for clinical decision systems.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207