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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.028
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