MRI-based deep learning can discriminate between temporal lobe epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiological identification of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is crucial for diagnosis and treatment planning. TLE neuroimaging abnormalities are pervasive at the group level, but they can be subtle and difficult to identify by visual inspection of individual scans, prompting applications of artificial intelligence (AI) assisted technologies. METHOD: We assessed the ability of a convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm to classify TLE vs. patients with AD vs. healthy controls using T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. We used feature visualization techniques to identify regions the CNN employed to differentiate disease types. RESULTS: We show the following classification results: healthy control accuracy = 81.54% (SD = 1.77%), precision = 0.81 (SD = 0.02), recall = 0.85 (SD = 0.03), and F1-score = 0.83 (SD = 0.02); TLE accuracy = 90.45% (SD = 1.59%), precision = 0.86 (SD = 0.03), recall = 0.86 (SD = 0.04), and F1-score = 0.85 (SD = 0.04); and AD accuracy = 88.52% (SD = 1.27%), precision = 0.64 (SD = 0.05), recall = 0.53 (SD = 0.07), and F1 score = 0.58 (0.05). The high accuracy in identification of TLE was remarkable, considering that only 47% of the cohort had deemed to be lesional based on MRI alone. Model predictions were also considerably better than random permutation classifications (p < 0.01) and were independent of age effects. CONCLUSIONS: AI (CNN deep learning) can classify and distinguish TLE, underscoring its potential utility for future computer-aided radiological assessments of epilepsy, especially for patients who do not exhibit easily identifiable TLE associated MRI features (e.g., hippocampal sclerosis).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".