Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Multi-Modal Domain Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (PET) reveal the structural and functional information of the brain from different dimensions, demonstrating considerable clinical and practical value in the computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the structure and semantics of different modal data are different, and the distribution between different datasets is prone to the problem of domain shift. Most of the existing methods start from the single-modal data and assume that different datasets meet the same distribution, but they fail to fully consider the complementary information between the multi-modal data and fail to effectively solve the problem of domain distribution difference. Methods: In this study, we propose a multi-modal deep domain adaptation (MM-DDA) model that integrates MRI and PET modal data, which aims to maximize the utilization of the complementarity of the multi-modal data and narrow the differences in domain distribution to boost the accuracy of AD classification. Specifically, MM-DDA comprises three primary modules: (1) the feature encoding module, which employs convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to capture detailed and abstract feature representations from MRI and PET images; (2) the multi-head attention feature fusion module, which is used to fuse MRI and PET features, that is, to capture rich semantic information between modes from multiple angles by dynamically adjusting weights, so as to achieve more flexible and efficient feature fusion; and (3) the domain transfer module, which reduces the distributional discrepancies between the source and target domains by employing adversarial learning training. Results: We selected 639 subjects from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and considered two transfer learning settings. In ADNI1→ADNI2, the accuracies of the four experimental groups, AD vs. CN, pMCI vs. sMCI, AD vs. MCI, and MCI vs. CN, reached 92.40%, 81.81%, 81.13%, and 85.45%, respectively. In ADNI2→ADNI1, the accuracies of the four experimental groups, AD vs. CN, pMCI vs. sMCI, AD vs. MCI, and MCI vs. CN, reached 94.73%, 81.48%, 85.48%, and 81.69%, respectively. Conclusions: MM-DDA is compared with other deep learning methods on two kinds of transfer learning, and the performance comparison results confirmed the superiority of the proposed method in AD prediction tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".