Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32554321›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2020

Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients.

Frank de Vos, Tijn M Schouten, Marisa Koini, Mark J R J Bouts, Rogier A Feis, Anita Lechner, Reinhold Schmidt, Mark A van Buchem, Frans R J Verhey, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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 at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Frank de VosInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands. Electronic address: f.de.vos@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
Tijn M SchoutenInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Marisa KoiniDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Austria.
Mark J R J BoutsInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Rogier A FeisInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Anita LechnerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Austria.
Reinhold SchmidtDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Austria.
Mark A van BuchemDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Frans R J VerheyDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Marcel G M Olde RikkertDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboudumc Alzheimer Centre, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Radboudumc Alzheimer Centre, Donders Institute for Medical Neurosciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Philip ScheltensDepartment of Neurology, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mark de RooijInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Jeroen van der GrondDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Serge A R B RomboutsInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLMedical University of Graz · ATNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLMaastricht University · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer's disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models can also discriminate AD in diverse clinical populations as found in memory clinics. To study this, we trained MRI-based AD classification models on a single centre data set consisting of AD patients (N = 76) and controls (N = 173), and used these models to assign AD scores to subjective memory complainers (N = 67), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (N = 61), and AD patients (N = 61) from a multi-centre memory clinic data set. The anatomical MRI scans were used to calculate grey matter density, subcortical volumes and cortical thickness, the diffusion MRI scans were used to calculate fractional anisotropy, mean, axial and radial diffusivity, and the rs-fMRI scans were used to calculate functional connectivity between resting state networks and amplitude of low frequency fluctuations. Within the multi-centre memory clinic data set we removed scan site differences prior to applying the models. For all models, on average, the AD patients were assigned the highest AD scores, followed by MCI patients, and later followed by SMC subjects. The anatomical MRI models performed best, and the best performing anatomical MRI measure was grey matter density, separating SMC subjects from MCI patients with an AUC of 0.69, MCI patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.70, and SMC patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.86. The diffusion MRI models did not generalise well to the memory clinic data, possibly because of large scan site differences. The functional connectivity model separated SMC subjects and MCI patients relatively good (AUC = 0.66). The multimodal MRI model did not improve upon the anatomical MRI model. In conclusion, we showed that the grey matter density model generalises best to memory clinic subjects. When also considering the fact that grey matter density generally performs well in AD classification studies, this feature is probably the best MRI-based feature for AD diagnosis in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseBrainCognitive DysfunctionDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleGray MatterHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemoryMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerAlzheimer’s diseaseAnatomical MRIClassificationDiffusion MRIMild cognitive impairmentResting state fMRISubjective memory complainers

Identifiers

PMID32554321
PMCPMC7303669
OpenAlexW3033562710

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.