Discovering genetic biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease using 2D‐CNN and GWAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To identify candidate neuroimaging and genetic biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and other brain diseases, especially for little‐known brain disorders, in a data‐driven way, we advocate an approach which incorporates an adaptive classifier ensemble model by combining Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Ensemble Learning with Genetic Algorithm (GA), i.e., the CNN‐EL‐GA method, into Genome‐Wide Association Studies (GWAS). Method In the CNN‐EL‐GA method, a large number of base classifiers, i.e., CNN models, were trained utilizing a set of sagittal, coronal, or transversal magnetic resonance imaging slices, and the CNN models with strong discriminability were then selected and integrated into a single classifier ensemble with the GA for classifying AD. While the generalization capability of the acquired classifier ensemble was maximized, the intersection points were decided by the most discriminative slices among the sagittal, coronal, and transversal slice sets. The gray matter volumes of the top ten discriminative brain regions which contained the most intersection points were utilized to carry out GWAS together with the genotypic data. The pipeline of the proposed approach incorporating the CNN‐EL‐GA method into GWAS for discovering candidate genetic biomarkers of AD is shown in Figure 1. Result Six genes of PCDH11X/Y, TPTE2, LOC107985902, MUC16 and LINC01621 as well as Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, e.g., rs36088804, rs34640393, rs2451078, rs10496214, rs17016520, rs2591597, rs9352767 and rs5941380, were identified. Conclusion This approach overcomes the limitations associated with subjective factors while adaptively achieving more robust and effective candidate biomarkers in a data‐driven way. The approach is promising to advance the discovery of effective candidate genetic biomarkers for 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".