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 36 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, are associated with changes in multiple neuroimaging and biological measures. These may provide complementary information for diagnosis and prognosis. We present a multi-modality classification framework in which manifolds are constructed based on pairwise similarity measures derived from random forest classifiers. Similarities from multiple modalities are combined to generate an embedding that simultaneously encodes information about all the available features. Multi-modality classification is then performed using coordinates from this joint embedding. We evaluate the proposed framework by application to neuroimaging and biological data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Features include regional MRI volumes, voxel-based FDG-PET signal intensities, CSF biomarker measures, and categorical genetic information. Classification based on the joint embedding constructed using information from all four modalities out-performs the classification based on any individual modality for comparisons between Alzheimer's disease patients and healthy controls, as well as between mild cognitive impairment patients and healthy controls. Based on the joint embedding, we achieve classification accuracies of 89% between Alzheimer's disease patients and healthy controls, and 75% between mild cognitive impairment patients and healthy controls. These results are comparable with those reported in other recent studies using multi-kernel learning. Random forests provide consistent pairwise similarity measures for multiple modalities, thus facilitating the combination of different types of feature data. We demonstrate this by application to data in which the number of features differs by several orders of magnitude between modalities. Random forest classifiers extend naturally to multi-class problems, and the framework described here could be applied to distinguish between multiple patient groups in the future.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
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 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 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. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

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. 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 2013 — 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 — / 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 23041336)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total 36 / 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

Gray, K. R., Aljabar, P., Heckemann, R. A., Hammers, A., Rueckert, D., & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2013). Random forest-based similarity measures for multi-modal classification of Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.065

Vancouver

Gray KR, Aljabar P, Heckemann RA, Hammers A, Rueckert D, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Random forest-based similarity measures for multi-modal classification of Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.065. PMID: 23041336.

BibTeX

@article{gray2013-23041336,
  author  = {Gray, K. R. and Aljabar, P. and Heckemann, R. A. and Hammers, A. and Rueckert, D. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Random forest-based similarity measures for multi-modal classification of Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {NeuroImage},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.065},
  pmid    = {23041336},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.065}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →