MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405516662 · doi:10.1007/s42452-024-06440-w

Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using MRI analysis and machine learning algorithms

2024· article· en· W4405516662 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Helia Givian, Jean-Paul Calbimonte

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Applied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisJanssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research And DevelopmentNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversité de LausannePfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationEisaiAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsBioClinicaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyHaute école Spécialisée de Suisse OccidentaleBiogenFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsCognitive impairmentDiseaseAlgorithmCognitionPsychologyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial to prevent their progression. In this study, we proposed the analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based on features including; hippocampus (HC) area size, HC grayscale statistics and texture features (mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, contrast, correlation, energy, homogeneity, entropy), lateral ventricle (LV) area size, gray matter area size, white matter area size, cerebrospinal fluid area size, patient age, weight, and cognitive score. Five machine learning classifiers; K-nearest neighborhood (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), and multi-layer perception (MLP) were used to distinguish between groups: cognitively normal (CN) vs AD, early MCI (EMCI) vs late MCI (LMCI), CN vs EMCI, CN vs LMCI, AD vs EMCI, and AD vs LMCI. Additionally, the correlation and dependence were calculated to examine the strength and direction of association between each extracted feature and each classification of the group. The average classification accuracies in 20 trials were 95% (SVM), 71.50% (RF), 82.58% (RF), 84.91% (SVM), 85.83% (RF), and 85.08% (RF), respectively, with the best accuracies being 100% (SVM, RF, and MLP), 83.33% (RF), 91.66% (RF), 95% (SVM, and MLP), 96.66% (RF), and 93.33% (DT). Cognitive scores, HC and LV area sizes, and HC texture features demonstrated significant potential for diagnosing AD and its subtypes for all groups. RF and SVM showed better performance in distinguishing between groups. These findings highlight the importance of using 2D-MRI to identify key features containing critical information for early diagnosis of AD. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42452-024-06440-w.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Applied SciencesSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207