An eXplainability Artificial Intelligence approach to brain connectivity in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has revolutionized the way human experts, especially from non-computational domains, approach artificial intelligence; this is particularly true for clinical applications where the transparency of the results is often compromised by the algorithmic complexity. Here, we investigate how Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects brain connectivity within a cohort of 432 subjects whose T1 brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging data (MRI) were acquired within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). In particular, the cohort included 92 patients with AD, 126 normal controls (NC) and 214 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We show how graph theory-based models can accurately distinguish these clinical conditions and how Shapley values, borrowed from game theory, can be adopted to make these models intelligible and easy to interpret. Explainability analyses outline the role played by regions like putamen, middle and superior temporal gyrus; from a class-related perspective, it is possible to outline specific regions, such as hippocampus and amygdala for AD and posterior cingulate and precuneus for MCI. The approach is general and could be adopted to outline how brain connectivity affects specific brain regions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".