A study on the predictive strength of fractal dimension of white and grey matter on MRI images in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many recent studies have shown that Fractal Dimension (FD), a ratio for figuring out the complexity of a system given its measurements, can be used as an useful index to provide information about certain brain disease. Our research focuses on the Alzheimer’s disease changes in white and grey brain matters detected through the FD indexes of their contours. Data used in this study were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) Neuroimaging Initiative database (Normal Condition, N = 57, and Alzheimer’s Disease, N = 60). After standard preprocessing pipeline, the white and grey matter 3D FD indexes are computed for the two groups. A statistical analysis shows that only grey matter 3D FD indexes are able to differentiate healthy and AD subjects. Although white matter 3D FD indexes do not, it is remarkable that their presence enhance the separation capability of previous ones. In order to valuate the classification capability of these indexes on healthy and AD subjects, we define several Neural Networks models. The performances of these models vary according to the statistical analysis and reach their best performances when each 3D FD input index is changed into a sequence of 2D FD indexes of (a subset of) the horizontal slices of the white and grey matter volumes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".