ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
What Do Persistent Misclassifications Tell Us About Alzheimer's Disease Detection using Structural MRI?
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Deep learning classifiers applied to structural MRI (sMRI) have achieved high performance in detecting Alzheimer's Disease (AD), yet systematic investigation of their failure modes remains limited. In this study, we trained two deep learning architectures to classify AD from cognitively normal (CN) participants using sMRI data from the ADNI dataset, and examined whether misclassifications persist across models and training configurations. We identified a subgroup of subjects who were persistently misclassified across 100 model instances, and found that these subjects exhibited a markedly different atrophy subtype distribution compared to correctly classified AD cases, with substantial enrichment of hippocampal-sparing and minimal atrophy subtypes. To disentangle whether persistent false negatives (FN) reflect earlier disease stage or atypically presenting disease, we analyzed longitudinal follow-up scans and tested whether model predictions changed as neurodegeneration progressed. A change in prediction (from FN to true positive (TP)) was observed in only a subgroup of subjects and required intervals of up to five years, suggesting that persistent misclassification may not always be explained by disease staging alone. Although the sample size is small, these findings underscore the importance of accounting for disease heterogeneity in the development and evaluation of clinical AI models for AD detection.
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.