ArticleBrain and behavior2018
Characterization of brain anatomical patterns by comparing region intensity distributions: Applications to the description of Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2018. 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.
- The causal effect of Alzheimer's disease and family history of Alzheimer's disease on non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular structure and function: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease in Developed and Developing Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2021Article
- Toward a Multimodal Computer-Aided Diagnostic Tool for Alzheimer's Disease Conversion.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Prediction of cognitive performance in old age from spatial probability maps of white matter lesions.Aging · 2020Article
- Characterization of brain anatomical patterns by comparing region intensity distributions: Applications to the description of Alzheimer's disease.Brain and behavior · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This work presents an automatic characterization of the Alzheimer's disease describing the illness as a multidirectional departure from a baseline defining the control state, being these directions determined by a distance between functional-equivalent anatomical regions. Methods: After a brain parcellation, a region is described by its histogram of gray levels, and the Earth mover's distance establishes how close or far these regions are. The medoid of the control group is set as the reference and any brain is characterized by its set of distances to this medoid. Evaluation: This hypothesis was assessed by separating groups of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from control subjects, using a subset of the Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS) database. An additional experiment evaluated the method generalization and consisted in training with the OASIS data and testing with the Minimal Interval Resonance Imaging in Alzheimer's disease (MIRIAD) database. Results: Classification between controls and patients with AD resulted in an equal error rate of 0.1 (90% of sensitivity and specificity at the same time). The automatic ranking of regions resulting is in strong agreement with those regions described as important in clinical practice. Classification with different databases results in a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 91%. Conclusions: This method automatically finds out a multidimensional expression of the AD, which is directly related to the anatomical changes in specific areas such as the hippocampus, the amygdala, the planum temporale, and thalamus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.