ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of multiple deep learning models with mitigation-driven approaches for enhanced Alzheimer's disease classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Small-Data Deep Learning for Alzheimer-Spectrum Classification from Structural MRI: A Feasibility Study Using OASIS.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
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
Alzheimer's disease diagnosis from structural MRI remains challenging in clinical practice. While deep learning shows promise for automated dementia detection, comprehensive comparisons of different neural network approaches are lacking. It analyzed T1-weighted MRI scans comprised 14,983 2D grid images derived from 1346 unique patients. Ten coronal brain slices spaced 2mm apart were arranged in 512 × 512-pixel grids using our 2D coronal-10 slicing sMRI methodology to preserve anatomical relationships while reducing computational demands. Ten deep learning architectures were systematically compared, including traditional CNNs, Vision Transformers, and Capsule Networks. Patient-level data splitting prevented information leakage. ECAResNet269 achieved the highest balanced accuracy (63%), with mild performance across all classes: dementia (38% sensitivity/77% specificity), MCI (72% sensitivity/66% specificity), and healthy controls (44% sensitivity/90% specificity). Class imbalance mitigation strategies substantially improved model performance, with combined SMOTE, cost-sensitive learning, and focal loss approaches achieving 74% balanced accuracy and (78% CN, 76%MCI, 69% AD) sensitivity in the ECAResNet269 model. Pretrained CNNs architectures substantially outperformed advanced methods-Vision Transformer and CapsNets showed complete classification failure. The 2D grid method retained 96% of diagnostic information compared to 3D approaches while providing 4.2 × faster processing. Traditional CNNs architectures remain most effective for medical neuroimaging classification. ECAResNet269 achieved clinically relevant performance suitable for dementia screening applications. The 2D grid methodology successfully balances diagnostic accuracy with computational efficiency, enabling deployment on standard clinical hardware.
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.