The role of visual rating and automated brain volumetry in early detection and differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) is a diagnostic marker for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the accuracy of quantitative MTA (QMTA) in diagnosing early AD is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of QMTA and its related components (inferior lateral ventricle [ILV] and hippocampus) with MTA in the early diagnosis of MCI and AD. METHODS: This study included four groups: normal (NC), MCI stable (MCIs), MCI converted to AD (MCIs), and mild AD (M-AD) groups. Magnetic resonance image analysis software was used to quantify the hippocampus, ILV, and QMTA. MTA was rated by two experienced neurologists. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed to compare their capability in differentiating AD from NC and MCI, and optimal thresholds were determined using the Youden index. RESULTS: = 0.730). The diagnostic accuracy of QMTA was superior to that of MTA, the hippocampus, and ILV in differentiating MCI from AD. The diagnostic accuracy of QMTA was found to remain the best across age, sex, and pathological subgroups analyzed. The sensitivity (92.45%) and specificity (90.64%) were higher in this study when a cutoff value of 0.635 was chosen for QMTA. CONCLUSIONS: QMTA may be a better choice than the MTA scale or the associated quantitative components alone in identifying AD patients and MCI individuals with higher progression risk.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".