Alzheimer’s Multiclassification Using Explainable AI Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we address the early detection challenges of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) using explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques. AD, characterized by amyloid plaques and tau tangles, leads to cognitive decline and remains hard to diagnose due to genetic and environmental factors. Utilizing deep learning models, we analyzed brain MRI scans from the ADNI database, categorizing them into normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD. The ResNet-50 architecture was employed, enhanced by a channel-wise attention mechanism to improve feature extraction. To ensure model transparency, we integrated local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIMEs) and gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM), highlighting significant image regions contributing to predictions. Our model achieved 85% accuracy, effectively distinguishing between the classes. The LIME and Grad-CAM visualizations provided insights into the model’s decision-making process, particularly emphasizing changes near the hippocampus for MCI. These XAI methods enhance the interpretability of AI-driven AD diagnosis, fostering trust and aiding clinical decision-making. Our approach demonstrates the potential of combining deep learning with XAI for reliable and transparent medical applications.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it