MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119979061 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_107676

Multi‐modal Neuroimaging Based Dementia Risk Score for Early Detection of Future Risk of Dementia Onset for Alzheimer's Disease

2025· article· en· W7119979061 on OpenAlexaff
Swapnil Singh, Trey Bateman, Timothy M. Hughes, Kiran K. Solingapuram Sai, Suzanne Craft, Metin Nafi Gurcan, Karteek Popuri, Mirza Faisal Beg, Liqing Zhang, Da Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryNeuroimagingDementiaDiseaseModality (human–computer interaction)Framingham Risk ScoreRisk assessmentArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by multi-domain biomarkers according to the revised classification framework. Machine learning models may benefit from an effective combination of multiple modalities. This study aims to incorporate multi-modal neuroimaging data (T1-MRI and amyloid-PET) to improve the predictive power of deep learning models, capturing both the amyloid (A) and atrophy (N) patterns in the brain to derive dementia risk score (DRS) and prediction risk of future progression of dementia at the early stage of the AD. METHOD: We used the multi-modal neuroimaging data from the ADNI 1,2 and GO datasets (Table 1). The CN and AD subjects were used to train a classification model through 5-fold cross-validation to learn AD-related neuroimaging features and derive the dementia risk scores. The derived models were then applied to subjects who were diagnosed as MCI at their baseline measurements to predict the future risk of progression to dementia. Both T1-MRI and Amyloid-PET data were rigid-registered to the MNI space and skull-stripped. ResNet50 models with initial model weights pre-trained from MedicalNet were fine-tuned to train classification tasks for MRI and PET independently. The resulting single-modal DRS was then averaged to achieve a fused multi-modal DR. The multi-modal DRS was then used to infer the final prediction for future dementia onset. Predictive performance was evaluated via balanced accuracy and AUC. RESULT: When classifying AD/CN, the balanced accuracy is 94.53% for the MRI-only model, 86.53% for the PET-only model; and 97.29% for the fused model. For predicting future MCI progression, the balance accuracy was 71.17% for MRI-only model, 71.79% for the PET-only model, and 74.59% for the fused model (Table 2, Figure 1). CONCLUSION: This study underscores the potential of leveraging multi-modal deep learning models toward improving accuracy in AD prediction and tracking progression. Results demonstrated complementary strengths of MRI and PET. The reduced performance on pMCI prediction indicates room for improvement with further fine-tuning process, more advanced multi-modal fusion strategy, as well as the best modality (e.g. FDG-PET and tau-PET). Future plans involve multi-modal fusion at an early stage of the model and further evaluate model generalizability using independent datasets such as NACC data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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→