Regional deep atrophy: Using temporal information to automatically identify regions associated with Alzheimer’s disease progression from longitudinal MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal assessment of brain atrophy, particularly in the hippocampus, is a well-studied biomarker for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). Estimating brain progression patterns can be applied to understanding the therapeutic effects of amyloid-clearing drugs in research and detecting the earliest sign of accelerated atrophy in clinical settings. However, most state-of-the-art measurements calculate changes directly by segmentation and/or deformable registration of MRI images, and may misreport head motion or MRI artifacts as neurodegeneration, impacting their accuracy. In our previous study, we developed a deep learning method DeepAtrophy that uses a convolutional neural network to quantify differences between longitudinal MRI scan pairs that are associated with time. DeepAtrophy has high accuracy in inferring temporal information from longitudinal MRI scans, such as temporal order or relative interscan interval. DeepAtrophy also provides an overall atrophy score that was shown to perform well as a potential biomarker of disease progression and treatment efficacy. However, DeepAtrophy is not interpretable, and it is unclear what changes in the MRI contribute to progression measurements. In this paper, we propose Regional Deep Atrophy (RDA), which combines the temporal inference approach from DeepAtrophy with a deformable registration neural network and attention mechanism that highlights regions in the MRI image where longitudinal changes are contributing to temporal inference. RDA has similar prediction accuracy as DeepAtrophy, but its additional interpretability makes it more acceptable for use in clinical settings, and may lead to more sensitive biomarkers for disease monitoring and progression understanding in preclinical AD.
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".