Improved Alzheimer Disease Diagnosis With a Machine Learning Approach and Neuroimaging: Case Study Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".