MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210802041 · doi:10.1002/alz.053169

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease using 3D convolutional neural networks

2021· article· en· W4210802041 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Pan, An Zeng, Chao Zou, Huabin Rong, Xiaowei Song

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkClassifier (UML)Binary classificationRegion of interestPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceCognitive impairmentDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingCognitionNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologySupport vector machineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background As one of the most common neurodegenerative disorders which progress slowly over time, Alzheimer's Disease (AD) could be effectively managed by delaying the disease process through early detection and intervention at present. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is the prodromal state of AD. At present, in‐vivo structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been widely used for computer‐aided diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders noninvasively owing to its sensitivity to morphological changes caused by brain atrophy like AD. Plus, the rapid progress of deep learning (DL), especially deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has improved MRI analysis thanks to its superiority in the generalization capability. Method An ensemble learning (EL) model which combines genetic algorithm (GA) with 3D‐CNN based on region of interest (ROI) was proposed to identify AD/MCI subjects (Figure 1). We firstly used the 3D‐CNN model to train a candidate base classifier for each a ROI (here a brain region). Then, the GA algorithm was employed to search for the best base classifier combination with the optimal generalization ability and based on it, the whole‐brain MRI classifier ensemble was built to detect AD/MCI. Owing to the one‐to‐one correspondence relationship between the base classifiers and the brain regions, we further identified those brain regions with significant classification capabilities. Result In three binary classification tasks, i.e., classification between 1) AD vs. NC (Normal control), 2) MCIc (MCI patients who will convert to AD) vs. NC and 3) MCIc and MCInc (MCI patients who will not convert to AD), the testing results revealed accuracy rate of 0.89±0.03, 0.88±0.03, and 0.71±0.08, with a stratified fivefold cross‐validation method, respectively. In a data‐driven way, the brain regions that greatly contributed to AD and MCI classifications (Figure 2), e.g., medial amygdala, rostral hippocampus, caudal hippocampus, were ascertained. They were linked to emotion, memory, language, and other key brain functions impaired early in the AD staging. Conclusion Compared with the 2D‐CNN models, the proposed classifiers ensemble could make full use of the effective information embedded in MRI to discover more discriminative MRI features/biomarkers. Additionally, the advocated method could also be valuable to detect the potential neuroimaging biomarkers for other brain disorders.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207