ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2017
Classification of MRI and psychological testing data based on support vector machine.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How artificial intelligence is shaping neuropsychology: A focus on cognitive assessment of neurodegenerative disorders.Journal of neuropsychology · 2026Review
- Comparing the use of supervised machine learning variable selection methods in the context of two-group classification in the psychological and health sciences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Integrating Demographics and Imaging Features for Various Stages of Dementia Classification: Feed Forward Neural Network Multi-Class Approach.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Amyloid-β prediction machine learning model using source-based morphometry across neurocognitive disorders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, and often fatal, brain disease that causes neurodegeneration, resulting in memory loss as well as other cognitive and behavioral problems. Here, we propose a novel multimodal method combining independent components from MRI measures and clinical assessments to distinguish Alzheimer's patients or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from healthy elderly controls. 70 AD subjects (mean age: 77.15 ± 6.2 years), 98 MCI subjects (mean age: 76.91 ± 5.7 years), and 150 HC subjects (mean age: 75.69 ± 3.8 years) were analyzed. Our method includes the following steps: pre-processing, estimating the number of independent components from the MR image data, extracting effective voxels for classification, and classification using a support vector machine (SVM)-based classifier. As a result, with regards to classifying AD from healthy controls, we achieved a classification accuracy of 97.7%, sensitivity of 99.2%, and specificity of 96.7%; for differentiating MCI from healthy controls, we achieved a classification accuracy of 87.8%, a sensitivity of 86.0%, and a specificity of 89.6; these results are better than those obtained with clinical measurements alone (accuracy of 79.5%, sensitivity of 74.0%, and specificity of 85.1%). We found that (1) both AD patients and MCI subjects showed brain tissue loss, but the volumes of gray matter loss in MCI subjects was far less, supporting the notion that MCI is a prodromal stage of AD; and (2) combining gray matter features from MRI and three commonly used measures of mental status, cognitive function improved classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with classification using only independent components or clinical measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29445429PMC5808983W2977708655What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.