Decoding cognitive health using machine learning: A comprehensive evaluation for diagnosis of significant memory concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The timely identification of significant memory concern (SMC) is crucial for proactive cognitive health management, especially in an aging population. Detecting SMC early enables timely intervention and personalized care, potentially slowing cognitive disorder progression. This study presents a state‐of‐the‐art review followed by a comprehensive evaluation of machine learning models within the randomized neural networks (RNNs) and hyperplane‐based classifiers (HbCs) family to investigate SMC diagnosis thoroughly. Utilizing the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (ADNI2) dataset, 111 individuals with SMC and 111 healthy older adults are analyzed based on T1W magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, extracting rich features. This analysis is based on baseline structural MRI (sMRI) scans, extracting rich features from gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), Jacobian determinant (JD), and cortical thickness (CT) measurements. In RNNs, deep random vector functional link (dRVFL) and ensemble dRVFL (edRVFL) emerge as the best classifiers in terms of performance metrics in the identification of SMC. In HbCs, Kernelized pinball general twin support vector machine (Pin‐GTSVM‐K) excels in CT and WM features, whereas Linear Pin‐GTSVM (Pin‐GTSVM‐L) and Linear intuitionistic fuzzy TSVM (IFTSVM‐L) performs well in the JD and GM features sets, respectively. This comprehensive evaluation emphasizes the critical role of feature selection, feature based‐interpretability and model choice in attaining an effective classifier for SMC diagnosis. The inclusion of statistical analyses further reinforces the credibility of the results, affirming the rigor of this analysis. The performance measures exhibit the suitability of this framework in aiding researchers with the automated and accurate assessment of SMC. The source codes of the algorithms and datasets used in this study are available at https://github.com/mtanveer1/SMC . This article is categorized under: Technologies > Classification Technologies > Machine Learning Application Areas > Health Care
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".