MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390194396 · doi:10.1002/alz.075341

Classification of patients with dementia in a late life depression cohort using structural MRI

2023· article· en· W4390194396 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hadji, Andrea M. Weinstein, Jerrold Jeyachandra, Patrick J. Brown, Meryl A. Butters, Helen Lavretsky, Eric J. Lenze, J. Philip Miller, Benoit H. Mulsant, Aristotle N. Voineskos, Joshua S. Shimony

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Dementia Research AllianceCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCohortDepression (economics)MedicineNeuropsychologyCognitive impairmentArtificial intelligenceCognitionAlgorithmMachine learningDiseaseInternal medicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Late life depression (LLD) is a risk factor for cognitive impairment, with up to 40% of depressed older adults showing persistent cognitive deficits even after symptom remission. Over 20% of Alzheimer’s disease patients exhibit depression‐like symptoms which can represent an early marker of disease (Tsuno et Homma., 2009). We hypothesized that automated classification algorithms trained on structural MRI could predict adjudicated diagnosis of cognitive impairment (CI) in this cohort. Method Our study evaluated 295 patients with LLD. An adjudication committee consisting of two board‐certified psychiatrists and a clinical neuropsychologist determined ground‐truth labels for patient diagnostic results of CI (N = 145) or No CI (N = 150). Patients underwent T1‐weighted scans, which were segmented with Freesurfer 6.0.1 (freesurfer.net) packaged with fMRIPrep 1.5.8 (fmriprep.org) using the Desikan‐Killiany atlas. Cortical thickness and volumetric data were obtained along with demographic parameters. Freesurfer data was then regressed against estimated total intracranial volume. 11 classifications algorithms implemented in R were trained and tested on 209 and 88 patients, respectively, to classify if a patient has CI. All continuous‐valued data were normalized with respect to the training set mean and standard deviation. Result Table 1 shows results from multiple classifications algorithms, including high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy from adaptive boosting algorithms. The latter algorithms iteratively optimize a set of binary classification tree algorithms (Freund et Schapire., 1996). Conclusion Volumetric structural MRI biomarkers trained with machine learning classifiers can adequately categorize depressed older adults with CI which could assist the adjudication process. Future work incorporating structural MRI biomarkers with gold standard clinical data may improve earlier detection of cognitive impairment stemming from a neurodegenerative etiology. References : 1. Tsuno, N., & Homma, A. (2009). What is the association between depression and Alzheimer’s disease?. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 9(11), 1667‐1676. 2. Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1996, July). Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In icml (Vol. 96, pp. 148‐156).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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→