MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385751831 · doi:10.1002/alz.13412

Artificial intelligence for diagnostic and prognostic neuroimaging in dementia: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4385751831 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin Borchert, Tiago Azevedo, AmanPreet Badhwar, José Bernal, Matthew J. Betts, Rose Bruffaerts, Michael C. Burkhart, Ilse Dewachter, Helena M. Gellersen, Audrey Low, Ilianna Lourida, Luiza Santos Machado, Christopher R. Madan, Maura Malpetti, Jhony Mejia, Sofia Michopoulou, Carlos Muñoz‐Neira, J. Pepys, M PERES, Veronica Phillips, Siddharth Ramanan, Stefano Tamburin, Hanz M. Tantiangco, Lokendra Thakur, Alessandro Tomassini, Ashwati Vipin, Eugene Tang, Danielle Newby, Janice M. Ranson, David J. Llewellyn, Michele Veldsman, Timothy Rittman

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreNational Institutes of HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCourtois FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUniversity of BristolDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaDepartment of Health and Social CareEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchMedical Research CouncilAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsNeuroimagingDementiaArtificial intelligenceModalitiesMachine learningDiscriminative modelDiseaseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeComputer scienceMedicineData sciencePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) and neuroimaging offer new opportunities for diagnosis and prognosis of dementia. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies reporting AI for neuroimaging in diagnosis and/or prognosis of cognitive neurodegenerative diseases. RESULTS: A total of 255 studies were identified. Most studies relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. Algorithmic classifiers were the most commonly used AI method (48%) and discriminative models performed best for differentiating Alzheimer's disease from controls. The accuracy of algorithms varied with the patient cohort, imaging modalities, and stratifiers used. Few studies performed validation in an independent cohort. DISCUSSION: The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. We make recommendations to improve model validation including addressing key clinical questions, providing sufficient description of AI methods and validating findings in independent datasets. Collaborative approaches between experts in AI and medicine will help achieve the promising potential of AI tools in practice. HIGHLIGHTS: There has been a rapid expansion in the use of machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis in neurodegenerative disease Most studies (71%) relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset with no other individual dataset used more than five times There has been a recent rise in the use of more complex discriminative models (e.g., neural networks) that performed better than other classifiers for classification of AD vs healthy controls We make recommendations to address methodological considerations, addressing key clinical questions, and validation We also make recommendations for the field more broadly to standardize outcome measures, address gaps in the literature, and monitor sources of bias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207