Home › Research › Digital health tools
Gaussian process classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from resting-state fMRI
Challis E, Hurley P, Serra L, Bozzali M, Oliver S, Cercignani M.. NeuroImage, 2015-02-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Multivariate pattern analysis and statistical machine learning techniques are attracting increasing interest from the neuroimaging community. Researchers and clinicians are also increasingly interested in the study of functional-connectivity patterns of brains at rest and how these relations might change in conditions like Alzheimer's disease or clinical depression. In this study we investigate the efficacy of a specific multivariate statistical machine learning technique to perform patient stratification from functional-connectivity patterns of brains at rest. Whilst the majority of previous approaches to this problem have employed support vector machines (SVMs) we investigate the performance of Bayesian Gaussian process logistic regression (GP-LR) models with linear and non-linear covariance functions. GP-LR models can be interpreted as a Bayesian probabilistic analogue to kernel SVM classifiers. However, GP-LR methods confer a number of benefits over kernel SVMs. Whilst SVMs only return a binary class label prediction, GP-LR, being a probabilistic model, provides a principled estimate of the probability of class membership. Class probability estimates are a measure of the confidence the model has in its predictions, such a confidence score may be extremely useful in the clinical setting. Additionally, if miss-classification costs are not symmetric, thresholds can be set to achieve either strong specificity or sensitivity scores. Since GP-LR models are Bayesian, computationally expensive cross-validation hyper-parameter grid-search methods can be avoided. We apply these methods to a sample of 77 subjects; 27 with a diagnosis of probable AD, 50 with a diagnosis of a-MCI and a control sample of 39. All subjects underwent a MRI examination at 3T to obtain a 7minute and 20second resting state scan. Our results support the hypothesis that GP-LR models can be effective at performing patient stratification: the implemented model achieves 75% accuracy disambiguating healthy subjects from subjects with amnesic mild cognitive impairment and 97% accuracy disambiguating amnesic mild cognitive impairment subjects from those with Alzheimer's disease, accuracies are estimated using a held-out test set. Both results are significant at the 1% level.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Challis, E., Hurley, P., Serra, L., Bozzali, M., Oliver, S., & Cercignani, M. (2015). Gaussian process classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from resting-state fMRI. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.037
Vancouver
Challis E, Hurley P, Serra L, Bozzali M, Oliver S, Cercignani M. Gaussian process classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from resting-state fMRI. NeuroImage. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.037. PMID: 25731993.
BibTeX
@article{challis2015-25731993,
author = {Challis, E. and Hurley, P. and Serra, L. and Bozzali, M. and Oliver, S. and Cercignani, M.},
title = {{Gaussian process classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from resting-state fMRI}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.037},
pmid = {25731993},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.037}
}
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
- Our results support the hypothesis that GP-LR models can be effective at performing patient stratification: the implemented model achieves 75% accuracy disambiguating healthy subjects from subjects with amnesic mild cognitive impairment and 97% accuracy disambiguating amnesic mild cognitive impairment subjects from those with Alzheimer's disease, accuracies are estimated using a held-out test set.
- Both results are significant at the 1% level.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants77
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 77 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 25731993) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.