Transforming 3D MRI to 2D Feature Maps Using Pre-Trained Models for Diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 5% of children and 2.5% of adults suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This disorder can have significant negative consequences on people’s lives, particularly children. In recent years, methods based on artificial intelligence and neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI, have made significant progress, paving the way for development of more reliable diagnostic tools. In this proof of concept study, our aim was to investigate the potential utility of neuroimaging data and clinical information in combination with a deep learning-based analytical approach, more precisely, a novel feature extraction technique for the diagnosis of ADHD with high accuracy. Methods: Leveraging the ADHD200 dataset, which encompasses demographic information and anatomical MRI scans collected from a diverse ADHD population, our study focused on developing modern deep learning-based diagnostic models. The data preprocessing employed a pre-trained Visual Geometry Group16 (VGG16) network to extract two-dimensional (2D) feature maps from three-dimensional (3D) anatomical MRI data to reduce computational complexity and enhance diagnostic power. The inclusion of personal attributes, such as age, gender, intelligence quotient, and handedness, strengthens the diagnostic models. Four deep-learning architectures—convolutional neural network 2D (CNN2D), CNN1D, long short-term memory (LSTM), and gated recurrent units (GRU)—were employed for analysis of the MRI data, with and without the inclusion of clinical characteristics. Results: A 10-fold cross-validation test revealed that the LSTM model, which incorporated both MRI data and personal attributes, had the best diagnostic performance among all tested models in the diagnosis of ADHD with an accuracy of 0.86 and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) score of 0.90. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that the proposed approach of extracting 2D features from 3D MRI images and integrating these features with clinical characteristics may be useful in the diagnosis of ADHD with high accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".