MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225611576 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2022.1.005

Examining stability of machine learning methods for predicting dementia at early phases of the disease

2022· article· en· W4225611576 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sinan S. Faouri, Mahmood AlBashayreh, Mohammad Azzeh

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersApplied Science Private University
KeywordsDementiaMachine learningArtificial intelligenceStability (learning theory)Principal component analysisFeature selectionComputer scienceDimensionality reductionFeature (linguistics)DiseaseAlgorithmMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is a neuropsychiatric brain disorder that usually occurs when one or more brain cells stop working partially or at all. Diagnosis of this disorder in the early phases of the disease is a vital task to rescue patients’ lives from bad consequences and provide them with better healthcare. Machine learning methods have been proven to be accurate in predicting dementia in the early phases of the disease. The prediction of dementia depends heavily on the type of collected data which usually are gathered from Normalized Whole Brain Volume (nWBV) and Atlas Scaling Factor (ASF) which are normally measured and corrected from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs). Other biological features such as age and gender can also help in the diagnosis of dementia. Although many studies use machine learning for predicting dementia, we could not reach a conclusion on the stability of these methods for which one is more accurate under different experimental conditions. Therefore, this paper investigates the conclusion stability regarding the performance of machine learning algorithms for dementia prediction. To accomplish this, a large number of experiments were run using 7 machine learning algorithms and two feature reduction algorithms namely, Information Gain (IG) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). To examine the stability of these algorithms, thresholds of feature selection were changed for the IG from 20% to 100% and the PCA dimension from 2 to 8. This has resulted in 7×9 + 7×7= 112 experiments. In each experiment, various classification evaluation data were recorded. The obtained results show that among seven algorithms the support vector machine and Naïve Bayes are the most stable algorithms while changing the selection threshold. Also, it was found that using IG would seem more efficient than using PCA for predicting Dementia. These promising results open the door to a new era of early prognosis of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207