Alzheimer’s Disease MRI Identification, Recognition, & Evaluation - Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we investigate the impact of various Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures on the accuracy of diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) using patient MRI scans. Alzheimer’s Disease is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder that affects millions worldwide. Early, accurate, and non-invasive diagnostic methods are required for providing optimal care and symptom management. Deep learning techniques, particularly CNNs, have shown great promise in enhancing this diagnostic process. We aim to contribute to the ongoing research in this field by comparing the effectiveness of different CNN architectures and providing insights for future studies. Our methodology involved preprocessing MRI data, implementing multiple CNN architectures, and evaluating the performance of each model. We employed intensity normalization, linear registration, and skull stripping for our preprocessing. The selected architectures included VGG, ResNet, and DenseNet models, all implemented using the Keras library. We employed transfer learning and trained models from scratch to compare their effectiveness. Our findings demonstrated significant differences in performance among the tested architectures, with DenseNet201 achieving the highest accuracy of 86.4%. Transfer learning proved to be helpful in improving model performance. We also identified potential areas for future research, such as experimenting with other architectures, optimizing hyperparameters, and employing fine-tuning strategies. By providing a comprehensive analysis of the selected CNN architectures, we offer a solid foundation for future research in Alzheimer’s Disease diagnosis using deep learning techniques. Our study highlights the potential of CNNs as a valuable diagnostic tool and emphasizes the importance of ongoing research to develop more accurate and effective models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".