Machine Learning Driven by Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Classification of Alzheimer Disease Progression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To diagnose Alzheimer disease (AD), individuals are classified according to the severity of their cognitive impairment. There are currently no specific causes or conditions for this disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess AD prevalence across different stages using machine learning (ML) approaches comprehensively. METHODS: The selection of papers was conducted in 3 phases, as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 guidelines: identification, screening, and final inclusion. The final analysis included 24 papers that met the criteria. The selection of ML approaches for AD diagnosis was rigorously based on their relevance to the investigation. The prevalence of patients with AD at 2, 3, 4, and 6 stages was illustrated through the use of forest plots. RESULTS: The prevalence rate for both cognitively normal (CN) and AD across 6 studies was 49.28% (95% CI 46.12%-52.45%; P=.32). The prevalence estimate for the 3 stages of cognitive impairment (CN, mild cognitive impairment, and AD) is 29.75% (95% CI 25.11%-34.84%, P<.001). Among 5 studies with 14,839 participants, the analysis of 4 stages (nondemented, moderately demented, mildly demented, and AD) found an overall prevalence of 13.13% (95% CI 3.75%-36.66%; P<.001). In addition, 4 studies involving 3819 participants estimated the prevalence of 6 stages (CN, significant memory concern, early mild cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment, late mild cognitive impairment, and AD), yielding a prevalence of 23.75% (95% CI 12.22%-41.12%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The significant heterogeneity observed across studies reveals that demographic and setting characteristics are responsible for the impact on AD prevalence estimates. This study shows how ML approaches can be used to describe AD prevalence across different stages, which provides valuable insights for future research.
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".