Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Digital health tools

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

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
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.

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →