Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30364671›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018

Machine learning of neuroimaging for assisted diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review.

Enrico Pellegrini, Lucia Ballerini, Maria Del C Valdes Hernandez, Francesca M Chappell, Victor González-Castro, Devasuda Anblagan, Samuel Danso, Susana Muñoz-Maniega, Dominic Job, Cyril Pernet and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Enrico PellegriniDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Lucia BalleriniDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Maria Del C Valdes HernandezDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Francesca M ChappellDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Victor González-CastroDepartment of Electrical, Systems and Automatics Engineering, Universidad de León, León, Spain.
Devasuda AnblaganDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Samuel DansoDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Susana Muñoz-ManiegaDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Dominic JobDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Cyril PernetDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Grant MairDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Tom J MacGillivrayDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Emanuele TruccoVAMPIRE project, Computing, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Joanna M WardlawDivision of Neuroimaging, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701120Medical Research Council G1001245Medical Research Council MR/M013111/1Medical Research Council MR/R024065/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdvanced machine learning methods might help to identify dementia risk from neuroimaging, but their accuracy to date is unclear.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature, 2006 to late 2016, for machine learning studies differentiating healthy aging from dementia of various types, assessing study quality, and comparing accuracy at different disease boundaries.

resultsOf 111 relevant studies, most assessed Alzheimer's disease versus healthy controls, using AD Neuroimaging Initiative data, support vector machines, and only T1-weighted sequences. Accuracy was highest for differentiating Alzheimer's disease from healthy controls and poor for differentiating healthy controls versus mild cognitive impairment versus Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment converters versus nonconverters. Accuracy increased using combined data types, but not by data source, sample size, or machine learning method. DISCUSSION: Machine learning does not differentiate clinically relevant disease categories yet. More diverse data sets, combinations of different types of data, and close clinical integration of machine learning would help to advance the field.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular diseaseClassificationDementiaMachine learningMRIPathological agingSegmentationSmall vessel disease

Identifiers

PMID30364671
PMCPMC6197752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.