Performance Analysis of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Classification of Alzheimer’s Disease from Brain MRI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an irreversible and degenerative brain condition that gradually damages memory and thinking abilities. Despite being incurable, AD causes significant pain and financial hardship to patients and their families. However, medications are most effective when administered early in the course of the disease and early diagnosis is crucial in the treatment of AD to restrict its progression. There are several approaches proposed for computer-assisted AD diagnosis that involve structural and functional imaging modalities, such as sMRI, fMRI, DTI, and PET. Machine learning and deep learning techniques have facilitated the development of novel models for diagnostic accuracy in AD. This research compares the performance of several machine learning and deep convolutional architectures to detect AD from MCI. It is essential to find the effective baseline model for classifying AD, hence all the pre-trained models are evaluated with benchmark dataset. Experimental observations indicate that the DenseNet-169 performed best out of different state-of-the-art architectures, with an average accuracy of 82.2%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it