MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uncertainty Aware Tri-Modal Fusion with Faithful Explainability for Five-Stage Alzheimer's Disease Classification

2025· article· W7154513624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marwa Bengarali, Abir Smiti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensor fusionPattern recognition (psychology)FusionFeature (linguistics)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early and accurate staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a significant facet of prognosis, clinical trial participation and treatment selection, but remains difficult because single modality approaches apply each input equally and do not capture complimentary biomarkers. Presented with this problem, we proposed an uncertainty-aware tri-modal framework that combines, (i) IBSI compliant radiomic features obtained from the hippocampus, ventricles and cortex, (ii) 3D Swin-UNet transformer embeddings that encodes the multi-scale atrophy patterns, and (iii) fine-grained cognitive scores from the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Our model makes use of Monte-Carlo dropout to jointly estimate patient-specific epistemic uncertainty, which dynamically weights each mode of input through a gated self-attention mechanism, automatically eliminating the weight of noise from motion-corrupted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or unreliable assessments measuring cognitive performance. The framework is evaluated on 1,080 individuals from ADNI, OASIS-3, and AIBL datasets and yields an average accuracy of$88.6 \pm 1.2 \%$, and average Macro F1 and MacroAUC of$86.4 \pm 1.3 \%$and 0.918 respectively across five AD stages, while also achieving 87.2 % accuracy on a completely independent multi-site test set. Importantly, these performance metrics are on par with or exceed state-of-the-art observation models, and are achieved using a low-cost T4 GPU in just$0.11 ~\mathrm{s} / \text{scan}$. Our model has a three-part explainability system using the transformers' saliency maps, the radiomic SHAP values, and the cognitive item attention weights, and demonstrates strong causal effort: perturbation of the voxels in the top- 10 % of saliency reduced confidence by 25 %, while masking the random regions had less than ($<5 \%$) effect on confidence. These results collectively indicate that uncertainty-aware multimodal fusion and rigorous validation for interpretability are imperative in creating clinically permissible AD stage systems.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207