Home › Research › Digital health tools
Classification of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Eight-Layer Convolutional Neural Network with Leaky Rectified Linear Unit and Max Pooling
Wang SH, Phillips P, Sui Y, Liu B, Yang M, Cheng H.. Journal of medical systems, 2018-03-26
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive brain disease. The goal of this study is to provide a new computer-vision based technique to detect it in an efficient way. The brain-imaging data of 98 AD patients and 98 healthy controls was collected using data augmentation method. Then, convolutional neural network (CNN) was used, CNN is the most successful tool in deep learning. An 8-layer CNN was created with optimal structure obtained by experiences. Three activation functions (AFs): sigmoid, rectified linear unit (ReLU), and leaky ReLU. The three pooling-functions were also tested: average pooling, max pooling, and stochastic pooling. The numerical experiments demonstrated that leaky ReLU and max pooling gave the greatest result in terms of performance. It achieved a sensitivity of 97.96%, a specificity of 97.35%, and an accuracy of 97.65%, respectively. In addition, the proposed approach was compared with eight state-of-the-art approaches. The method increased the classification accuracy by approximately 5% compared to state-of-the-art methods.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wang, S. H., Phillips, P., Sui, Y., Liu, B., Yang, M., & Cheng, H. (2018). Classification of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Eight-Layer Convolutional Neural Network with Leaky Rectified Linear Unit and Max Pooling. Journal of medical systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-0932-7
Vancouver
Wang SH, Phillips P, Sui Y, Liu B, Yang M, Cheng H. Classification of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Eight-Layer Convolutional Neural Network with Leaky Rectified Linear Unit and Max Pooling. Journal of medical systems. 2018. doi:10.1007/s10916-018-0932-7. PMID: 29577169.
BibTeX
@article{wang2018-29577169,
author = {Wang, S. H. and Phillips, P. and Sui, Y. and Liu, B. and Yang, M. and Cheng, H.},
title = {{Classification of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Eight-Layer Convolutional Neural Network with Leaky Rectified Linear Unit and Max Pooling}},
journal = {Journal of medical systems},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1007/s10916-018-0932-7},
pmid = {29577169},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-0932-7}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The numerical experiments demonstrated that leaky ReLU and max pooling gave the greatest result in terms of performance.
- In addition, the proposed approach was compared with eight state-of-the-art approaches.
- The method increased the classification accuracy by approximately 5% compared to state-of-the-art methods.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Effect size97.96%; 97.35%; 97.65%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical systems) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 2018 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29577169) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 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.