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 66 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

For effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to identify subjects who are most likely to exhibit rapid cognitive decline. We aimed to develop an automatic image interpretation system based on a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) which can accurately predict future cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients using flurodeoxyglucose and florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET). PET images of 139 patients with AD, 171 patients with MCI and 182 normal subjects obtained from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database were used. Deep CNN was trained using 3-dimensional PET volumes of AD and normal controls as inputs. Manually defined image feature extraction such as quantification using predefined region-of-interests was unnecessary for our approach. Furthermore, it used minimally processed images without spatial normalization which has been commonly used in conventional quantitative analyses. Cognitive outcome of MCI subjects was predicted using this network. The prediction accuracy of the conversion of mild cognitive impairment to AD was compared with the conventional feature-based quantification approach. Accuracy of prediction (84.2%) for conversion to AD in MCI patients outperformed conventional feature-based quantification approaches. ROC analyses revealed that performance of CNN-based approach was significantly higher than that of the conventional quantification methods (p < 0.05). Output scores of the network were strongly correlated with the longitudinal change in cognitive measurements (p < 0.05). These results show the feasibility of deep learning as a practical tool for developing predictive neuroimaging biomarker.

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

APA 7th

Choi, H., Jin, K. H., & Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2018). Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging. Behavioural brain research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.017

Vancouver

Choi H, Jin KH, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging. Behavioural brain research. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.017. PMID: 29454006.

BibTeX

@article{choi2018-29454006,
  author  = {Choi, H. and Jin, K. H. and {Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging}},
  journal = {Behavioural brain research},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.017},
  pmid    = {29454006},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.017}
}

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 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 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; 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. 38 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 66 of 100. Total 66 of 100.38 of the 58 points we could judge = 66 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 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 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” 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 / 4 139 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)
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 29454006)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total 66 / 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.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →