Deep learning-based Alzheimer's disease detection: reproducibility and the effect of modeling choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Machine Learning (ML) has emerged as a promising approach in healthcare, outperforming traditional statistical techniques. However, to establish ML as a reliable tool in clinical practice, adherence to best practices in data handling, and modeling design and assessment is crucial. In this work, we summarize and strictly adhere to such practices to ensure reproducible and reliable ML. Specifically, we focus on Alzheimer's Disease (AD) detection, a challenging problem in healthcare. Additionally, we investigate the impact of modeling choices, including different data augmentation techniques and model complexity, on overall performance. Methods We utilize Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data from the ADNI corpus to address a binary classification problem using 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). Data processing and modeling are specifically tailored to address data scarcity and minimize computational overhead. Within this framework, we train 15 predictive models, considering three different data augmentation strategies and five distinct 3D CNN architectures with varying convolutional layers counts. The augmentation strategies involve affine transformations, such as zoom, shift, and rotation, applied either concurrently or separately. Results The combined effect of data augmentation and model complexity results in up to 10% variation in prediction accuracy. Notably, when affine transformation are applied separately, the model achieves higher accuracy, regardless the chosen architecture. Across all strategies, the model accuracy exhibits a concave behavior as the number of convolutional layers increases, peaking at an intermediate value. The best model reaches excellent performance both on the internal and additional external testing set. Discussions Our work underscores the critical importance of adhering to rigorous experimental practices in the field of ML applied to healthcare. The results clearly demonstrate how data augmentation and model depth—often overlooked factors– can dramatically impact final performance if not thoroughly investigated. This highlights both the necessity of exploring neglected modeling aspects and the need to comprehensively report all modeling choices to ensure reproducibility and facilitate meaningful comparisons across studies.
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 | 0.062 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".