Structural MRI Texture Analysis for Detecting Alzheimer’s Disease
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
Abstract Purpose: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has the highest worldwide prevalence of all neurodegenerative disorders, no cure, and low ratios of diagnosis accuracy at its early stage where treatments have some effect and can give some years of life quality to patients. This work aims to develop an automatic method to detect AD in 3 different stages, namely, control (CN), mild-cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD itself, using structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI). Methods: A set of co-occurrence matrix and texture statistical measures (contrast, correlation, energy, homogeneity, entropy, variance, and standard deviation) were extracted from a two-level discrete wavelet transform decomposition of sMRI images. The discriminant capacity of the measures was analyzed and the most discriminant ones were selected to be used as features for feeding classical machine learning (cML) algorithms and a convolution neural network (CNN). Results: The cML algorithms achieved the following classification accuracies: 93.3% for AD vs CN, 87.7% for AD vs MCI, 88.2% for CN vs MCI, and 75.3% for All vs All. The CNN achieved the following classification accuracies: 82.2% for AD vs CN, 75.4% for AD vs MCI, 83.8% for CN vs MCI, and 64% for All vs All. Conclusion: In the evaluated cases, cML provided higher discrimination results than CNN. For the All vs All comparison, the proposed method surpasses by 4% the discrimination accuracy of the state-of-the-art methods that use structural MRI.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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