Higher performance for women than men in MRI-based Alzheimer’s disease detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Although machine learning classifiers have been frequently used to detect Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on structural brain MRI data, potential bias with respect to sex and age has not yet been addressed. Here, we examine a state-of-the-art AD classifier for potential sex and age bias even in the case of balanced training data. Methods: Based on an age- and sex-balanced cohort of 432 subjects (306 healthy controls, 126 subjects with AD) extracted from the ADNI data base, we trained a convolutional neural network to detect AD in MRI brain scans and performed ten different random training-validation-test splits to increase robustness of the results. Classifier decisions for single subjects were explained using layer-wise relevance propagation. Results: The classifier performed significantly better for women (balanced accuracy 87.58 ± 1.14%) than for men (79.05 ± 1.27%). No significant differences were found in clinical AD scores, ruling out a disparity in disease severity as a cause for the performance difference. Analysis of the explanations revealed a larger variance in regional brain areas for male subjects compared to female subjects. Discussion: The identified sex differences cannot be attributed to an imbalanced training dataset, and therefore point to the importance of examining and reporting classifier performance across population subgroups to increase transparency and algorithmic fairness. Collecting more data especially among underrepresented subgroups and balancing the dataset are important but do not always guarantee a fair outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".