ReviewBME frontiers2025
Scoping the Landscape of Deep Learning for Alzheimer's Disease Stage Classification: Methods, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Review in BME frontiers, 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.
- Recent Advances in Organic Donor-Acceptor Two-Photon Absorption Materials: Mechanisms, Molecular Design, and Applications.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) models have been widely applied for Alzheimer's disease (AD) stage classification. This scoping review synthesizes recent research to evaluate current performance benchmarks, identify methodological limitations, and highlight translational barriers. DL has potential to augment diagnostic accuracy and accelerate early intervention in AD, but translation requires models that generalize across datasets and integrate into real-world clinical workflows. Following scoping review methodology, 18 peer-reviewed studies published between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed. We extracted dataset sources, preprocessing strategies, model architectures, performance metrics, and translational considerations. Most studies employed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) or transfer learning (TL) backbones with accuracies frequently reported above 90%. Comparative synthesis revealed that TL and custom CNNs achieved similar headline accuracies, with differences of less than one percentage point. Reported performance was highly sensitive to task framing (cross-sectional vs. progression) and dataset provenance, with curated subsets often yielding near-ceiling internal accuracies but limited generalizability. Only one study implemented true external validation, underscoring a critical translational gap. Cost-effectiveness was rarely discussed explicitly; however, several studies indicated that open datasets reduce financial barriers, while adapting pipelines for EMR, or multisite data entails substantial resource demands. DL for AD classification shows consistent high accuracy but limited robustness, with external validation and financial cost-effectiveness remaining underreported. Future progress depends on standardized evaluation protocols, explicit reporting of financial costs, and the development of clinically interpretable, workflow-integrated models.
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.