Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40963032›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Decision Strategies in AI-Based Ensemble Models in Opportunistic Alzheimer's Detection from Structural MRI.

Solveig Kristina Hammonds, Trygve Eftestøl, Kathinka Daehli Kurz, Alvaro Fernandez-Quilez, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Solveig Kristina HammondsStavanger Medical Imaging Laboratory, Radiology Department, Stavanger University Hospital, Gerd-Ragna Bloch Thorsens gate 8, Stavanger, 4011, Norway. solveig.kristina.hammonds@sus.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-3370
Trygve EftestølDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, Kjølv Egelands hus, Kristine Bonnevies vei 22, Stavanger, 4021, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4487-7018
Kathinka Daehli KurzStavanger Medical Imaging Laboratory, Radiology Department, Stavanger University Hospital, Gerd-Ragna Bloch Thorsens gate 8, Stavanger, 4011, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1308-041X
Alvaro Fernandez-QuilezDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, Kjølv Egelands hus, Kristine Bonnevies vei 22, Stavanger, 4021, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7544-0797
for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Helse Vest F-12514
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative condition and the most common form of dementia. Recent developments in AD treatment call for robust diagnostic tools to facilitate medical decision-making. Despite progress for early diagnostic tests, there remains uncertainty about clinical use. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as a readily available imaging tool in the current AD diagnostic pathway, in combination with artificial intelligence, offers opportunities of added value beyond symptomatic evaluation. However, MRI studies in AD tend to suffer from small datasets and consequently limited generalizability. Although ensemble models take advantage of the strengths of several models to improve performance and generalizability, there is little knowledge of how the different ensemble models compare performance-wise and the relationship between detection performance and model calibration. The latter is especially relevant for clinical translatability. In our study, we applied three ensemble decision strategies with three different deep learning architectures for multi-class AD detection with structural MRI. For two of the three architectures, the weighted average was the best decision strategy in terms of balanced accuracy and calibration error. In contrast to the base models, the results of the ensemble models showed that the best detection performance corresponded to the lowest calibration error, independent of the architecture. For each architecture, the best ensemble model reduced the estimated calibration error compared to the base model average from (1) 0.174±0.01 to 0.164±0.04, (2) 0.182±0.02 to 0.141±0.04, and (3) 0.269±0.08 to 0.240±0.04 and increased the balanced accuracy from (1) 0.527±0.05 to 0.608±0.06, (2) 0.417±0.03 to 0.456±0.04, and (3) 0.348±0.02 to 0.371±0.03.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseEnsemble LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingArtificial IntelligenceDeep LearningHumansAlzheimer’s diseaseCalibrationDeep learningEnsemble modelMRI

Identifiers

PMID40963032
PMCPMC13230358

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.