A Deep Learning-Based Ensemble Method for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease using MRI Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease has gained major attention due to the growing prevalence of the disease and the resulting costs imposed on individuals and society. The main objective of this study was to propose an ensemble method based on deep learning for the early diagnosis of AD using MRI images. The methodology of this study consisted of collecting the dataset, preprocessing, creating the individual and ensemble models, evaluating the models based on ADNI data, and validating the trained model based on the local dataset. The proposed method was an ensemble approach selected through a comparative analysis of various ensemble scenarios. Finally, the six best individual CNN-based classifiers were selected to combine and constitute the ensemble model. The evaluation showed an accuracy rate of 98.57, 96.37, 94.22, 99.83, 93.88, and 93.92 for NC/AD, NC/EMCI, EMCI/LMCI, LMCI/AD, four-way and three-way classification groups, respectively. The validation results on the local dataset revealed an accuracy of 88.46 for three-way classification. Our performance results were higher than most reviewed studies and comparable with others. Although comparative analysis showed superior results of ensemble methods against individual architectures, there were no significant differences among various ensemble approaches. The validation results revealed the low performance of individual models in practice. In contrast, the ensemble method showed promising results. However, further studies on various and larger datasets are required to validate the generalizability of the model.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".