Home › Research › Digital health tools
Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging
Choi H, Jin KH, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. Behavioural brain research, 2018-02-14
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
- The prediction accuracy of the conversion of mild cognitive impairment to AD was compared with the conventional feature-based quantification approach.
- ROC analyses revealed that performance of CNN-based approach was significantly higher than that of the conventional quantification methods (p < 0.05).
- These results show the feasibility of deep learning as a practical tool for developing predictive neuroimaging biomarker.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants139
- Effect size84.2%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 66/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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.