MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409644227 · doi:10.2196/60866

Improved Alzheimer Disease Diagnosis With a Machine Learning Approach and Neuroimaging: Case Study Development

2025· article· en· W4409644227 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Lilia Lazli

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSupport vector machineNeuroimagingMachine learningArtificial neural networkLinear discriminant analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Principal component analysisDimensionality reductionComputer-aided diagnosisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Alzheimer disease (AD) is a severe neurological brain disorder. While not curable, earlier detection can help improve symptoms substantially. Machine learning (ML) models are popular and well suited for medical image processing tasks such as computer-aided diagnosis. These techniques can improve the process for an accurate diagnosis of AD. Objective: In this paper, a complete computer-aided diagnosis system for the diagnosis of AD has been presented. We investigate the performance of some of the most used ML techniques for AD detection and classification using neuroimages from the Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS) and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) datasets. Methods: The system uses artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector machines (SVMs) as classifiers, and dimensionality reduction techniques as feature extractors. To retrieve features from the neuroimages, we used principal component analysis (PCA), linear discriminant analysis, and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. These features are fed into feedforward neural networks (FFNNs) and SVM-based ML classifiers. Furthermore, we applied the vision transformer (ViT)-based ANNs in conjunction with data augmentation to distinguish patients with AD from healthy controls. Results: Experiments were performed on magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography scans. The OASIS dataset included a total of 300 patients, while the ADNI dataset included 231 patients. For OASIS, 90 (30%) patients were healthy and 210 (70%) were severely impaired by AD. Likewise for the ADNI database, a total of 149 (64.5%) patients with AD were detected and 82 (35.5%) patients were used as healthy controls. An important difference was established between healthy patients and patients with AD (P=.02). We examined the effectiveness of the three feature extractors and classifiers using 5-fold cross-validation and confusion matrix-based standard classification metrics, namely, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Compared with the state-of-the-art performing methods, the success rate was satisfactory for all the created ML models, but SVM and FFNN performed best with the PCA extractor, while the ViT classifier performed best with more data. The data augmentation/ViT approach worked better overall, achieving accuracies of 93.2% (sensitivity=87.2, specificity=90.5, precision=87.6, F1-score=88.7, and AUROC=92) for OASIS and 90.4% (sensitivity=85.4, specificity=88.6, precision=86.9, F1-score=88, and AUROC=90) for ADNI. Conclusions: Effective ML models using neuroimaging data could help physicians working on AD diagnosis and will assist them in prescribing timely treatment to patients with AD. Good results were obtained on the OASIS and ADNI datasets with all the proposed classifiers, namely, SVM, FFNN, and ViTs. However, the results show that the ViT model is much better at predicting AD than the other models when a sufficient amount of data are available to perform the training. This highlights that the data augmentation process could impact the overall performance of the ViT model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207