Differentiation of frontotemporal dementia subtypes using neuroimaging‐based multi‐type parallel feature embedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) represents a collection of neurocognitive syndromes with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) neuropathology, and is associated with significant clinical, pathological, and genetic heterogeneity. We trained a deep neural network (DNN) classifier to differentiate behavioral‐variant FTD (bvFTD), semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), and non‐fluent variant (nfvPPA) patients using MRI scans drawn from two multi‐site neuroimaging consortiums. Methods BvFTD (N = 173), nfvPPA (N = 63), and svPPA (N = 41) patients with T1‐MRI were extracted from the FTLD Neuroimaging Initiative (FTLDNI) and the ARTFL‐LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) databases. MRI data were preprocessed with FreeSurfer, with cortical thickness, cortical volume, and subcortical volumes extracted. Cortical measures were parcellated into 360 patches (i.e., ROIs) according to the HCP‐MMP1 atlas. Both the patch‐based cortical thickness and volume features were harmonized to control confounding effects of sex, age, total intracranial volume (TIV), cohort, and scanner. Multi‐type features were parallelly fed into a multi‐layer‐perceptron (MLP)‐based classifier. Weighted cross‐entropy loss function was used to account for unbalanced sample sizes across FTD subtypes. 10‐fold nested cross‐validation was used to evaluate the robustness of the classification model, with data split into 80/10/10 of training/validation/test data sets. Results Visual evaluation z‐scores of cortical features among FTLDNI and ALLFTD groups revealed site‐specific differences significantly reduced by feature harmonization, especially for volume (Figure 1). The balanced accuracy of the ensembled DNN classifier of each FTD subtype on test sets across all ten folds reached 0.76 ± 0.09 for bvFTD, 0.79 ± 0.07 for nfvPPA, and 0.88 ± 0.07 for svPPA (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows confusion matrices for classification performance in the test set across ten cross‐validation folds. Conclusion We developed a deep‐learning‐based framework to classify three FTD subtypes: bvFTD, nfvPPA, and svPPA. The combination of feature harmonization and parallel multi‐type feature embedding framework showed promising differentiation power. This work can be used to recognize at‐risk populations for early and precise diagnosis, to aid intervention planning. Future studies will compare classification based on different input features and use visualization methods to identify the most discriminative regions and explore their clinical relevance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".