Predicting Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale from T1‐weighted MRIs by Fine‐tuning a Pretrained Deep Learning Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developing diagnostic and prognostic tools for Alzheimer's disease is challenging due to clinical variability across stages. While many studies have focused on case-control classification and conversion prediction, fewer have explored MRI-based prediction of clinical assessment scores, such as the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS), despite its potential for measuring disease severity and aiding prognosis. Deep learning could enhance these predictions, but limited labeled data in Alzheimer's disease research constrains model training. To address this, we investigated whether a pretrained, robust brain age prediction model could be fine-tuned to predict clinical scores more effectively. METHOD: We built an ensemble (n = 5) model to predict brain age from 3D brain MRI. To ensure generalizability, we applied robust preprocessing methods, extensive data augmentation, and regularization techniques, achieving a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 3.17 years on average on multiple unseen external test datasets (Rajabli, 2024). We split 11,041 MRIs from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI1, ADNI2, and ADNI-Go) dataset into a training set (n = 5,536), validation set (n = 2,815), and test set (n = 2,690), ensuring that no subject appeared in more than one set (ADNI is a longitudinal cohort). We then fine-tuned our model to predict ADAS13 on the training set and evaluated it on the validation and test sets. RESULT: In ADNI, the mean ADAS13 score is 17.92 with a standard deviation of 11.42. We achieved a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 5.66, 6.46 and 5.90 on the training, validation and test sets, respectively, for predicting ADAS13. The R² score on the test set is 0.58 (r = 0.76, p << 0.01). Figure 1 displays the scatter plot of predicted ADAS13 versus true ADAS13 values for the test set. CONCLUSION: Using only 50% of the available data for training, we introduced a prediction model which generalized well to the test set, demonstrating the robustness of our model. Our approach required less data while achieving superior results compared to previous methods (such as Bhagwat 2019), paving the way for training more generalizable networks with limited data-a crucial factor for medical imaging datasets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".