MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116876415 · doi:10.1002/alz70862_110184

Predicting Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale from T1‐weighted MRIs by Fine‐tuning a Pretrained Deep Learning Model

2025· article· en· W7116876415 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Rajabli, Mahdie Soltaninejad, D Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningRobustness (evolution)Scale (ratio)Training setTest dataArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→