Classifying cognitive impairment based on FDG-PET and combined T1-MRI and rs-fMRI: An ADNI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) refers to a memory impairment among non-demented adults. It is a condition that increases the risk of dementia, notably due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). MCI is heterogeneous and there is a need for novel diagnostic approaches. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging provides robust AD biomarker characteristics, while anatomical and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offer complementary information. OBJECTIVE: Classify MCI and cognitively normal (CN) adults using FDG-PET images; predict individuals with MCI that convert to AD dementia; determine if MRI can achieve comparable performance to FDG-PET classification. METHODS: Four ADNI cohorts were created. Cohort 1: 805 participants (MCI n = 455; CN n = 350) that underwent FDG-PET. FDG-PET images were inputs to a one-channel 3-dimensional (3D) DenseNet deep learning model. Cohort 2: 348 participants (MCI n = 174; CN n = 174) with MRI and functional MRI. Cohort 3: overlapping cases from cohorts 1 and 2 (MCI n = 70; CN n = 70). Cohort 4: 336 participants (MCI-converters n = 168; MCI-stable n = 168) with FDG-PET from cohort 1. The one/two-channel models' inputs were T1-weighted MRI and/or amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations images, with classification metrics evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The FDG-PET model achieved 88.02%±3.82 accuracy for MCI versus CN classification, with 88.70%±4.70 sensitivity and 87.14%±5.03 specificity. Neither MRI model outperformed the FDG-PET model, as the highest MRI-based accuracy was 76.86%±1.95. The FDG-PET model achieved 63.23%±4.68 accuracy in classifying MCI-converters versus MCI-stable. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET images produced the highest accuracy in classifying MCI versus CN. While MRI-based approaches were inferior to FDG-PET, multi-contrast MRI still offers value for neurodegeneration classification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".