MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319765238 · doi:10.3390/s23041914

A Convolutional Neural Network and Graph Convolutional Network Based Framework for AD Classification

2023· article· en· W4319765238 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lan Lin, Min Xiong, Ge Zhang, Wenjie Kang, Shen Sun, Shuicai Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthServierH. Lundbeck A/SNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityEisaiNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBioClinicaNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceGraphPopulationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neuroscience community has developed many convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Population graphs are thought of as non-linear structures that capture the relationships between individual subjects represented as nodes, which allows for the simultaneous integration of imaging and non-imaging information as well as individual subjects' features. Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) generalize convolution operations to accommodate non-Euclidean data and aid in the mining of topological information from the population graph for a disease classification task. However, few studies have examined how GCNs' input properties affect AD-staging performance. Therefore, we conducted three experiments in this work. Experiment 1 examined how the inclusion of demographic information in the edge-assigning function affects the classification of AD versus cognitive normal (CN). Experiment 2 was designed to examine the effects of adding various neuropsychological tests to the edge-assigning function on the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) classification. Experiment 3 studied the impact of the edge assignment function. The best result was obtained in Experiment 2 on multi-class classification (AD, MCI, and CN). We applied a novel framework for the diagnosis of AD that integrated CNNs and GCNs into a unified network, taking advantage of the excellent feature extraction capabilities of CNNs and population-graph processing capabilities of GCNs. To learn high-level anatomical features, DenseNet was used; a set of population graphs was represented with nodes defined by imaging features and edge weights determined by different combinations of imaging or/and non-imaging information, and the generated graphs were then fed to the GCNs for classification. Both binary classification and multi-class classification showed improved performance, with an accuracy of 91.6% for AD versus CN, 91.2% for AD versus MCI, 96.8% for MCI versus CN, and 89.4% for multi-class classification. The population graph's imaging features and edge-assigning functions can both significantly affect classification accuracy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207