MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408808274 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.15

Boruta Feature Selection and Deep Learning for Alzheimer’s Disease Classification

2025· article· en· W4408808274 on OpenAlex
Nagaraj Naik

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFractal and DNA sequence analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive decline, memory impairment, and functional deterioration. The early and accurate classification of AD is crucial for timely intervention and management. This study utilizes the Boruta feature selection method to identify the most relevant features for AD classification, selecting the top 15 features based on importance ranking. Three machine learning models—Deep Neural Networks (DNN), Long Short-Term Memory Networks (LSTM), and Support Vector Machines (SVM)—were evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score as performance metrics. The LSTM model demonstrated the highest accuracy (89.30%), outperforming DNN (88.14%) and SVM (84.19%), owing to its capability of capturing temporal dependencies in inpatient data. Results indicate that deep learning models offer superior performance compared to traditional machine learning approaches in AD classification. The study emphasizes the importance of cognitive, lifestyle, and metabolic features in AD diagnosis while acknowledging limitations such as dataset constraints and model interpretability. Future research should improve explainability, incorporate multi-modal data, and leverage real-time monitoring techniques for enhanced 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.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.401 · 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