Home › Research › Digital health tools
Automated classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single MRI and deep neural networks
Basaia S, Agosta F, Wagner L, Canu E, Magnani G, Santangelo R, Filippi M, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. NeuroImage. Clinical, 2018-12-18
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
We built and validated a deep learning algorithm predicting the individual diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment who will convert to AD (c-MCI) based on a single cross-sectional brain structural MRI scan. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were applied on 3D T1-weighted images from ADNI and subjects recruited at our Institute (407 healthy controls [HC], 418 AD, 280 c-MCI, 533 stable MCI [s-MCI]). CNN performance was tested in distinguishing AD, c-MCI and s-MCI. High levels of accuracy were achieved in all the classifications, with the highest rates achieved in the AD vs HC classification tests using both the ADNI dataset only (99%) and the combined ADNI + non-ADNI dataset (98%). CNNs discriminated c-MCI from s-MCI patients with an accuracy up to 75% and no difference between ADNI and non-ADNI images. CNNs provide a powerful tool for the automatic individual patient diagnosis along the AD continuum. Our method performed well without any prior feature engineering and regardless the variability of imaging protocols and scanners, demonstrating that it is exploitable by not-trained operators and likely to be generalizable to unseen patient data. CNNs may accelerate the adoption of structural MRI in routine practice to help assessment and management of patients.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Basaia, S., Agosta, F., Wagner, L., Canu, E., Magnani, G., Santangelo, R., et al. (2019). Automated classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single MRI and deep neural networks. NeuroImage. Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101645
Vancouver
Basaia S, Agosta F, Wagner L, Canu E, Magnani G, Santangelo R, et al. Automated classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single MRI and deep neural networks. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101645. PMID: 30584016.
BibTeX
@article{basaia2019-30584016,
author = {Basaia, S. and Agosta, F. and Wagner, L. and Canu, E. and Magnani, G. and Santangelo, R. and Filippi, M. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Automated classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single MRI and deep neural networks}},
journal = {NeuroImage. Clinical},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101645},
pmid = {30584016},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101645}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- High levels of accuracy were achieved in all the classifications, with the highest rates achieved in the AD vs HC classification tests using both the ADNI dataset only (99%) and the combined ADNI + non-ADNI dataset (98%).
- CNNs discriminated c-MCI from s-MCI patients with an accuracy up to 75% and no difference between ADNI and non-ADNI images.
- CNNs provide a powerful tool for the automatic individual patient diagnosis along the AD continuum.
- Our method performed well without any prior feature engineering and regardless the variability of imaging protocols and scanners, demonstrating that it is exploitable by not-trained operators and likely to be generalizable to unseen patient data.
- CNNs may accelerate the adoption of structural MRI in routine practice to help assessment and management of patients.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage. Clinical) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30584016) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “convolutional”
205 studies in the library carry the topic tag “convolutional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 205 tagged studies.