Home › Research › Digital health tools
Classification of Alzheimer's Disease by Combination of Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks Using FDG-PET Images
Liu M, Cheng D, Yan W, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2018-06-19
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an irreversible brain degenerative disorder affecting people aged older than 65 years. Currently, there is no effective cure for AD, but its progression can be delayed with some treatments. Accurate and early diagnosis of AD is vital for the patient care and development of future treatment. Fluorodeoxyglucose positrons emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a functional molecular imaging modality, which proves to be powerful to help understand the anatomical and neural changes of brain related to AD. Most existing methods extract the handcrafted features from images, and then design a classifier to distinguish AD from other groups. These methods highly depends on the preprocessing of brain images, including image rigid registration and segmentation. Motivated by the success of deep learning in image classification, this paper proposes a new classification framework based on combination of 2D convolutional neural networks (CNN) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs), which learns the intra-slice and inter-slice features for classification after decomposition of the 3D PET image into a sequence of 2D slices. The 2D CNNs are built to capture the features of image slices while the gated recurrent unit (GRU) of RNN is cascaded to learn and integrate the inter-slice features for image classification. No rigid registration and segmentation are required for PET images. Our method is evaluated on the baseline FDG-PET images acquired from 339 subjects including 93 AD patients, 146 mild cognitive impairments (MCI) and 100 normal controls (NC) from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 95.3% for AD vs. NC classification and 83.9% for MCI vs. NC classification, demonstrating the promising classification performance.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Liu, M., Cheng, D., Yan, W., & Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2018). Classification of Alzheimer's Disease by Combination of Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks Using FDG-PET Images. Frontiers in neuroinformatics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00035
Vancouver
Liu M, Cheng D, Yan W, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Classification of Alzheimer's Disease by Combination of Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks Using FDG-PET Images. Frontiers in neuroinformatics. 2018. doi:10.3389/fninf.2018.00035. PMID: 29970996.
BibTeX
@article{liu2018-29970996,
author = {Liu, M. and Cheng, D. and Yan, W. and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Classification of Alzheimer's Disease by Combination of Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks Using FDG-PET Images}},
journal = {Frontiers in neuroinformatics},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.3389/fninf.2018.00035},
pmid = {29970996},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00035}
}
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
- Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 95.3% for AD vs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants339
- Effect size95.3%; 83.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in neuroinformatics) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 339 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 29970996) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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.