MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410074680 · doi:10.63471/am24003

Deep Learning Models for Early Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Neuroimaging Data

2024· article· en· W4410074680 on OpenAlexaff
Md Samiun, Md. Sazzad Hossain, Professor Sanaz Tehrani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Medical Sciences and Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeDeep learningArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseComputer sciencePsychologyMachine learningData scienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early identification is essential for successful intervention in Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is a major contributor to cognitive loss in older persons. Alzheimer's disease is difficult to detect in its early stages using conventional diagnostic techniques like neuroimaging and cognitive tests. This study investigates the use of deep learning models specifically, Convolutional Neural Networks, or CNNs to neuroimaging data to diagnose Alzheimer's disease early and the prognostic ability of Alzheimer-signature MRI biomarkers in detecting the change in cognitively normal persons into those with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. Based on secondary data taken from the literature, this study assesses the performance of many deep learning architectures, such as Dense Net models, Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), and 3D CNNs as well as biomarkers. According to our research, CNN-based models hold great potential for precise Alzheimer's disease identification, particularly when they use three-dimensional imaging data. CNNs are the most commonly used architecture, according to a comparative study of 22 reviewed research; other models, such as GCNs and fine-tuned VGG19, exhibit noteworthy performance. The clinical applicability of such deep learning techniques and their capacity to improve patient outcomes and diagnostic precision in Alzheimer's care are also covered in this research. The study ends with suggestions for additional research, with an emphasis on addressing dataset variability limits and optimizing the 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Medical Sciences and Artificial IntelligenceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207