Should artificial intelligence be used in conjunction with Neuroimaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder that affects memory, thinking, behavior, and other cognitive functions. Although there is no cure, detecting AD early is important for the development of a therapeutic plan and a care plan that may preserve cognitive function and prevent irreversible damage. Neuroimaging, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET), has served as a critical tool in establishing diagnostic indicators of AD during the preclinical stage. However, as neuroimaging technology quickly advances, there is a challenge in analyzing and interpreting vast amounts of brain imaging data. Given these limitations, there is great interest in using artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist in this process. AI introduces limitless possibilities in the future diagnosis of AD, yet there is still resistance from the healthcare community to incorporate AI in the clinical setting. The goal of this review is to answer the question of whether AI should be used in conjunction with neuroimaging in the diagnosis of AD. To answer the question, the possible benefits and disadvantages of AI are discussed. The main advantages of AI are its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, improve the efficiency in analyzing radiographic data, reduce physician burnout, and advance precision medicine. The disadvantages include generalization and data shortage, lack of in vivo gold standard, skepticism in the medical community, potential for physician bias, and concerns over patient information, privacy, and safety. Although the challenges present fundamental concerns and must be addressed when the time comes, it would be unethical not to use AI if it can improve patient health and outcome.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".