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 38 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

We present a comparative split-half resampling analysis of various data driven feature selection and classification methods for the whole brain voxel-based classification analysis of anatomical magnetic resonance images. We compared support vector machines (SVMs), with or without filter based feature selection, several embedded feature selection methods and stability selection. While comparisons of the accuracy of various classification methods have been reported previously, the variability of the out-of-training sample classification accuracy and the set of selected features due to independent training and test sets have not been previously addressed in a brain imaging context. We studied two classification problems: 1) Alzheimer's disease (AD) vs. normal control (NC) and 2) mild cognitive impairment (MCI) vs. NC classification. In AD vs. NC classification, the variability in the test accuracy due to the subject sample did not vary between different methods and exceeded the variability due to different classifiers. In MCI vs. NC classification, particularly with a large training set, embedded feature selection methods outperformed SVM-based ones with the difference in the test accuracy exceeding the test accuracy variability due to the subject sample. The filter and embedded methods produced divergent feature patterns for MCI vs. NC classification that suggests the utility of the embedded feature selection for this problem when linked with the good generalization performance. The stability of the feature sets was strongly correlated with the number of features selected, weakly correlated with the stability of classification accuracy, and uncorrelated with the average classification accuracy.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study compared different machine learning feature selection methods for classifying brain MRI scans of people with Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment and normal controls. It is a methods comparison for diagnosis, not a treatment, cure or prevention study.

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 4 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. Total 38 of 100.38 of 100 points earned62 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroinformatics)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Neuroinformatics: journal h-index 83 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 4 / 7 Cited 85 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 7.1 citations a year over 12 year(s) since 2016
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 9.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 2 / 6 Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 9 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Heikki J. Huttunen: h-index 26 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Tampere University of Technology: institution h-index 322 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26803769)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total 38 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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

Tohka, J., Moradi, E., Huttunen, H., & Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2016). Comparison of Feature Selection Techniques in Machine Learning for Anatomical Brain MRI in Dementia. Neuroinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-015-9292-3

Vancouver

Tohka J, Moradi E, Huttunen H, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Comparison of Feature Selection Techniques in Machine Learning for Anatomical Brain MRI in Dementia. Neuroinformatics. 2016. doi:10.1007/s12021-015-9292-3. PMID: 26803769.

BibTeX

@article{tohka2016-26803769,
  author  = {Tohka, J. and Moradi, E. and Huttunen, H. and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Comparison of Feature Selection Techniques in Machine Learning for Anatomical Brain MRI in Dementia}},
  journal = {Neuroinformatics},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1007/s12021-015-9292-3},
  pmid    = {26803769},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-015-9292-3}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “classification”

835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →