MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400764140 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.18.24310625

Autoencoder Imputation of Missing Heterogeneous Data for Alzheimer's Disease Classification

2024· preprint· en· W4400764140 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Namitha Thalekkara Haridas, José M. Sánchez‐Bornot, Paula L. McClean, KongFatt Wong‐Lin

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsImputation (statistics)AutoencoderMissing dataComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) relies heavily on the availability of complete and reliable data. Yet, missingness of heterogeneous medical and clinical data are prevalent and pose significant challenges. Previous studies have explored various data imputation strategies and methods on heterogeneous data, but the evaluation of deep learning algorithms for imputing heterogeneous AD data is limited. In this study, we addressed this by investigating the efficacy of denoising autoencoder-based imputation of missing key features of a heterogeneous data that comprised tau-PET, MRI, cognitive and functional assessments, genotype, sociodemographic, and medical history. We focused on extreme (40-70%) missing at random of key features which depend on AD progression; we identified them as history of mother having AD, APoE ε4 alleles, and clinical dementia rating. Along with features selected using traditional feature selection methods, we included latent features extracted from the denoising autoencoder for subsequent classification. Using random forest classification with 10-fold cross-validation, we evaluated the AD predictive performance of imputed datasets and found robust classification performance, with accuracy of 79-85% and precision of 71-85% across different levels of missingness. Additionally, our results demonstrated high recall values for identifying individuals with AD, particularly in datasets with 40% missingness in key features. Further, our feature-selected dataset using feature selection methods, including autoencoder, demonstrated higher classification score than that of the original complete dataset. These results highlight the effectiveness and robustness of autoencoder in imputing crucial information for reliable AD prediction in AI-based clinical decision support systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207