A fully convolutional neural network for explainable classification of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, which affects an estimated 10.2% of children and adolescents in the United States. However, correct diagnosis of the condition can be challenging, with failure rates up to 20%. Machine learning models making use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to serve as a clinical decision support system to aid in the diagnosis of ADHD in youth to improve diagnostic validity. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an explainable deep learning model for automatic ADHD classification. 254 T1-weighted brain MRI datsets of youth aged 9-11 were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, and the Child Behaviour Checklist DSM-Oriented ADHD Scale was used to partition subjects into ADHD and non-ADHD groups. A fully convolutional neural network (CNN) adapted from a state-of-the-art adult brain age regression model was trained to distinguish between the neurologically normal children and children with ADHD. Saliency voxel attribution maps were generated to identify brain regions relevant for the classification task. The proposed model achieved an accuracy of 71.1%, sensitivity of 68.4%, and specificity of 73.7%. Saliency maps highlighted the orbitofrontal cortex, entorhinal cortex, and amygdala as important regions for the classification, which is consistent with previous literature linking these regions to significant structural differences in youth with ADHD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study applying artiicial intelligence explainability methods such as saliency maps to the classification of ADHD using a deep learning model. The proposed deep learning classification model has the potential to aid clinical diagnosis of ADHD while providing interpretable results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".