MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310137686 · doi:10.18280/isi.270512

An Exploration: Alzheimer’s Disease Classification Based on Spectral Matching of Shape Features

2022· article· en· W4310137686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sridevi Balne, Chiranjeevi Manike

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorSoftmax functionAutoencoderPolygon meshPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineFeature (linguistics)Node (physics)Matching (statistics)Deep learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we use structural deformations to classify dementia patients. Firstly, surface meshes are recovered from MRI segmented hippocampal, and node-to-node interactions between all the surface meshes are constructed using a spectral matching approach. Then, to learn the low-dimensional feature representation, an enhanced version of the variational auto-encoder (VAE) is given to the vertex coordinates of the surface meshes. We describe a new strategy for increasing variational autoencoder performance (VAE). We designed a generative adversarial training (GAN) technique to train the VAE to generate realistic medical images and apply the deep feature consistency principle, ensuring that the VAE output and its related input images have identical features. A discriminator with a SoftMax layer is concurrently trained to distinguish people with Alzheimer's from healthy people. Studies on the ADNI dataset show that the proposed method can distinguish normal people from early AD/NC and AD/EMCI classes with low computational time and higher accuracy that outperforms the support vector machine (SVM) baseline approach. All the simulation results are carried out with the Anaconda tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207