Contrastive Self-supervised Learning for Neurodegenerative Disorder Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) or frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) involve specific loss of brain volume, detectable in vivo using T1-weighted MRI scans. Supervised machine learning approaches classifying neurodegenerative diseases require diagnostic-labels for each sample. However, it can be difficult to obtain expert labels for a large amount of data. Self-supervised learning (SSL) offers an alternative for training machine learning models without data-labels. We investigated if the SSL models can applied to distinguish between different neurodegenerative disorders in an interpretable manner. Our method comprises a feature extractor and a downstream classification head. A deep convolutional neural network trained in a contrastive self-supervised way serves as the feature extractor, learning latent representation, while the classifier head is a single-layer perceptron. We used N=2694 T1-weighted MRI scans from four data cohorts: two ADNI datasets, AIBL and FTLDNI, including cognitively normal controls (CN), cases with prodromal and clinical AD, as well as FTLD cases differentiated into its sub-types. Our results showed that the feature extractor trained in a self-supervised way provides generalizable and robust representations for the downstream classification. For AD vs. CN, our model achieves 82% balanced accuracy on the test subset and 80% on an independent holdout dataset. Similarly, the Behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (BV) vs. CN model attains an 88% balanced accuracy on the test subset. The average feature attribution heatmaps obtained by the Integrated Gradient method highlighted hallmark regions, i.e., temporal gray matter atrophy for AD, and insular atrophy for BV. In conclusion, our models perform comparably to state-of-the-art supervised deep learning approaches. This suggests that the SSL methodology can successfully make use of unannotated neuroimaging datasets as training data while remaining robust and interpretable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".