Machine learning applications in vascular neuroimaging for the diagnosis and prognosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is a common neurological condition that contributes to strokes, dementia, disability, and mortality worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the use of neuroimaging CSVD markers in machine learning (ML) based diagnosis and prognosis of cognitive impairment and dementia, and identify both methodological changes over time and barriers to clinical translation. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched for original studies that used both neuroimaging CSVD markers and ML methods for diagnosing and prognosing neurodegenerative diseases (preregistration in PROSPERO: CRD42022366767). Each paper was independently reviewed by a pair of reviewers at all stages, with a third consulted to resolve conflicts. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of ML models to distinguish healthy controls from Alzheimer’s dementia and cognitive impairment, using area under the curve (AUC) as the performance metric. RESULTS: We identified 75 studies: 43 on diagnosis, 27 on prognosis, and 5 on both. Nearly 60% of studies were published in the past two years, reflecting a growing interest in using CSVD markers in ML-based diagnosis and prognosis of neurodegenerative diseases, especially Alzheimer’s dementia. This rising interest may be linked to the strong performance of such models: according to our meta-analysis, ML approaches using CSVD markers perform well in differentiating healthy controls from Alzheimer’s dementia (AUC 0.88 [95%-CI 0.85–0.92]) and cognitive impairment (AUC 0.84 [95%-CI 0.74–0.95]). However, the growing interest has not been matched by methodological rigour: only 16 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis due to inconsistent reporting, only five assessed the generalisability of their models on external datasets, and six lacked clear diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in incorporating CSVD markers into ML models for neurodegenerative disease classification is on the rise, and their performance suggests that this is worth further exploration. Serious methodological issues, including inconsistent reporting, limited generalisability testing, and other potential biases, are unfortunately common and hinder further adoption. Our targeted recommendations provide a roadmap to accelerate the integration of ML into clinical practice.
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 | 0.028 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".