MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404640966 · doi:10.3390/info15120746

A Comprehensive Analysis of Early Alzheimer Disease Detection from 3D sMRI Images Using Deep Learning Frameworks

2024· article· en· W4404640966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pouneh Abbasian, Tracy Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsNeuroimagingComputer scienceCognitive impairmentPreprocessorArtificial intelligenceCognitionMagnetic resonance imagingAlzheimer's diseaseDiseasePattern recognition (psychology)MedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) has largely focused on its later stages, often overlooking the critical need for early detection of Early Mild Cognitive Impairment (EMCI). Early detection is essential for potentially reducing mortality rates; however, distinguishing EMCI from Normal Cognitive (NC) individuals is challenging due to similarities in their brain patterns. To address this, we have developed a subject-level 3D-CNN architecture enhanced by preprocessing techniques to improve classification accuracy between these groups. Our experiments utilized structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (sMRI) data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, specifically the ADNI3 collection. We included 446 subjects from the baseline and year 1 phases, comprising 164 individuals diagnosed with EMCI and 282 individuals with NC. When evaluated using 4-fold stratified cross-validation, our model achieved a validation AUC of 91.5%. On the test set, it attained an accuracy of 81.80% along with a recall of 82.50%, precision of 81.80%, and specificity of 80.50%, effectively distinguishing between the NC and EMCI groups. Additionally, a gradient class activation map was employed to highlight key regions influencing model predictions. In comparative evaluations against pretrained models and existing literature, our approach demonstrated decent performance in early AD detection.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformationSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207