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 41 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Brain network alterations in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been the subject of much investigation, but the biological mechanisms underlying these alterations remain poorly understood. Here, we aim to identify the changes in brain networks in patients with AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and provide an accurate algorithm for classification of these patients from healthy control subjects (HC) by using a graph theoretical approach and advanced machine learning methods. Multivariate Granger causality analysis was performed on resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) data of 34 AD, 89 MCI, and 45 HC to calculate various directed graph measures. The graph measures were used as the original feature set for the machine learning algorithm. Filter and wrapper feature selection methods were applied to the original feature set to select an optimal subset of features. An accuracy of 93.3% was achieved for classification of AD, MCI, and HC using the optimal features and the naïve Bayes classifier. We also performed a hub node analysis and found that the number of hubs in HC, MCI, and AD were 12, 10, and 9, respectively, suggesting that patients with AD experience disturbance of critical communication areas in their brain network as AD progresses. The findings of this study provide insight into the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying MCI and AD. The proposed classification method highlights the potential of directed graph measures of rs-fMRI data for identification of the early stage of AD.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
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 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / 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; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Behavioural brain research)
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 2017 — 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 27345822)
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.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

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.

APA 7th

Khazaee, A., Ebrahimzadeh, A., Babajani-Feremi, A., & Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2017). Classification of patients with MCI and AD from healthy controls using directed graph measures of resting-state fMRI. Behavioural brain research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.043

Vancouver

Khazaee A, Ebrahimzadeh A, Babajani-Feremi A, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Classification of patients with MCI and AD from healthy controls using directed graph measures of resting-state fMRI. Behavioural brain research. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.043. PMID: 27345822.

BibTeX

@article{khazaee2017-27345822,
  author  = {Khazaee, A. and Ebrahimzadeh, A. and Babajani-Feremi, A. and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Classification of patients with MCI and AD from healthy controls using directed graph measures of resting-state fMRI}},
  journal = {Behavioural brain research},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.043},
  pmid    = {27345822},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.043}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “connectivity”

187 studies in the library carry the topic tag “connectivity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 187 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →