Quantifying Uncertainty in Automated Detection of Alzheimer’s Patients Using Deep Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most common forms of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease (AD), which leads to progressive mental deterioration. Unfortunately, there is no definitive diagnosis and cure that can stop the condition progressing. The diagnosis is often performed based on the clinical history and neuropsychological data, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Deep neural networks (DNN) algorithms are gaining popularity for medical diagnosis, and have been used widely for the analysis of MRI data. DNNs can extract hidden features from thousands of training images automatically. However, they cannot judge how confident they are about their predictions. To use DNNs in safety-critical applications such as medical diagnosis, uncertainty quantification of DNNs predictions is crucial. For this purpose, Monte Carlo dropout (MCD) has been widely used, however, it may lead to overconfident and miss calibrated results. This paper proposes a framework in which the MCD algorithm’s hyper-parameters are optimized during training using Bayesian optimization for the first time. The conducted optimization leads to assigning high predictive entropy to erroneous predictions and making it possible to recognize risky predictions. The proposed framework is used for AD diagnosis, which has not been done before. We compare our method with some existing methods in the literature based on different uncertainty quantification criteria. The results of comprehensive experiments on the Kaggle dataset using a deep model pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset show that the proposed algorithm can quantify uncertainty much better than the existing methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".