Identifying the regional substrates predictive of Alzheimer's disease progression through a convolutional neural network model and occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progressive brain atrophy is a key neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. However, atrophy patterns along the progression of AD dementia are diffuse and variable and are often missed by univariate methods. Consequently, identifying the major regional atrophy patterns underlying AD dementia progression is challenging. In the current study, we propose a method that evaluates the degree to which specific regional atrophy patterns are predictive of AD dementia progression, while holding all other atrophy changes constant using a total sample of 334 subjects. We first trained a dense convolutional neural network model to differentiate individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who progress to AD dementia versus those with a stable MCI diagnosis. Then, we retested the model multiple times, each time occluding different regions of interest (ROIs) from the model's testing set's input. We also validated this approach by occluding ROIs based on Braak's staging scheme. We found that the hippocampus, fusiform, and inferior temporal gyri were the strongest predictors of AD dementia progression, in agreement with established staging models. We also found that occlusion of limbic ROIs defined according to Braak stage III had the largest impact on the performance of the model. Our predictive model reveals the major regional patterns of atrophy predictive of AD dementia progression. These results highlight the potential for early diagnosis and stratification of individuals with prodromal AD dementia based on patterns of cortical atrophy, prior to interventional clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".