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 53 out of 100. Digital health tools

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

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 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. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
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.

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 →