MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390191978 · doi:10.1002/alz.082824

Employing transfer learning to optimize deep learning models for Alzheimer’s disease classification using two tau PET tracers

2023· article· en· W4390191978 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Bauer‐Negrini, Guilherme Povala, Luisa Vieira Lucchese, Firoza Z Lussier, Bruna Bellaver, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Cristiano Schaffer Aguzzoli, Carolina Soares, Hussein Zalzale, Francieli Rohden, Sarah Abbas, João Pedro Ferrari‐Souza, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, Peter Charles Lemaire, Arlec Cabrera, Cécile Tissot, Joseph Therriault, Gleb Bezgin, Stijn Servaes, Jenna Stevenson, Nesrine Rahmouni, Serge Gauthier, Thomas K. Karikari, Bruno Zatt, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfer of learningArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkMachine learningDeep learningComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Standardized uptake valuePositron emission tomographyNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have shown promise in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) classification using tau PET data. However, limited sample sizes and unharmonized tau tracers present challenges to developing an agnostic tau tracer tool to predict AD using machine learning. Transfer learning, which leverages pre‐trained models for related tasks, may address these issues. Here we evaluate the effectiveness of transfer learning in optimizing 3D CNNs for AD classification with distinct cohorts and tau tracers. Method We used tau PET images from ADNI ([18F]Flortaucipir, n = 437) and TRIAD ([18F]MK‐6240, n = 423) cohorts, categorizing patients into CU (cognitively unimpaired) and CI (cognitively impaired). Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were used for tau PET data. Separate 3D CNNs were trained for each tracer, with SUVR volumes as input and diagnosis as output. For transfer learning, we trained a model on [18F]Flortaucipir data with a reduced learning rate, using a pre‐trained model from [18F]MK‐6240. Models underwent 5‐fold cross‐validation, and metrics were computed as the average of validation metrics across folds. To avoid data leakage, images from the same subject were assigned to the same fold. Result The model trained on [18F]MK‐6240 tracer demonstrated higher classification performance than [18F]Flortaucipir (AUC = 0.84 vs 0.67; Figure 1. F1‐score = 79.77% vs 64.66%; Table 1). To enhance the classification performance of [18F]Flortaucipir model, we employed a transfer learning approach by leveraging the model pre‐trained with [18F]MK‐6240. With this approach, we observed a slight improvement in all classification metrics compared to the model trained solely on [18F]Flortaucipir data (AUC = 0.71 vs 0.67; Figure 1. Accuracy = 71.39% vs 67.72, F1‐score = 67.97% vs 64.66%; Table 1). Conclusion This finding highlights the value of transfer learning in optimizing deep learning models for Alzheimer’s disease classification, particularly when handling tau tracers with varying performance levels. Our results are consistent with previous on transfer learning’s effectiveness in this context. These preliminary findings indicate that applying this technique to larger datasets of tau tracers may further enhance model performance, potentially leading to the development of a tau tracer‐agnostic tool that overcomes the need of tracer harmonization for predicting dementia.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→