Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39714089›Full record

SynthesisJMIR aging2024

Machine Learning Driven by Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Classification of Alzheimer Disease Progression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Gopi Battineni, Nalini Chintalapudi, Francesco Amenta

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Gopi BattineniClinical Research, Telemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University Camerino, Camerino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0603-2356
Nalini ChintalapudiClinical Research, Telemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University Camerino, Camerino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0818-306X
Francesco AmentaClinical Research, Telemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University Camerino, Camerino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7794-4662

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo diagnose Alzheimer disease (AD), individuals are classified according to the severity of their cognitive impairment. There are currently no specific causes or conditions for this disease.

objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess AD prevalence across different stages using machine learning (ML) approaches comprehensively.

methodsThe selection of papers was conducted in 3 phases, as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 guidelines: identification, screening, and final inclusion. The final analysis included 24 papers that met the criteria. The selection of ML approaches for AD diagnosis was rigorously based on their relevance to the investigation. The prevalence of patients with AD at 2, 3, 4, and 6 stages was illustrated through the use of forest plots.

resultsThe prevalence rate for both cognitively normal (CN) and AD across 6 studies was 49.28% (95% CI 46.12%-52.45%; P=.32). The prevalence estimate for the 3 stages of cognitive impairment (CN, mild cognitive impairment, and AD) is 29.75% (95% CI 25.11%-34.84%, P<.001). Among 5 studies with 14,839 participants, the analysis of 4 stages (nondemented, moderately demented, mildly demented, and AD) found an overall prevalence of 13.13% (95% CI 3.75%-36.66%; P<.001). In addition, 4 studies involving 3819 participants estimated the prevalence of 6 stages (CN, significant memory concern, early mild cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment, late mild cognitive impairment, and AD), yielding a prevalence of 23.75% (95% CI 12.22%-41.12%; P<.001).

conclusionsThe significant heterogeneity observed across studies reveals that demographic and setting characteristics are responsible for the impact on AD prevalence estimates. This study shows how ML approaches can be used to describe AD prevalence across different stages, which provides valuable insights for future research.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseDisease ProgressionMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingCognitive DysfunctionHumansPrevalenceAlzheimer diseasebiomarkersclassificationcognitive impairmentimaging modalitiesmachine learningmagnetic resonance imagingmeta-analysisML-based diagnosisMRIprevalencesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39714089
PMCPMC11704653

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.