ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Evolution of deep learning for structural magnetic resonance imaging analysis in Alzheimer's disease: from slice-level classification to brain structure modeling.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) depicts Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related atrophy noninvasively and has become a common input for deep-learning studies of diagnosis and progression. For this structured narrative Mini Review, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, the Web of Science Core Collection, and IEEE Xplore through 31 August 2026. We then purposively selected recent studies that were informative about model design or evaluation. The review covers two-dimensional convolutional neural networks, three-dimensional and hybrid volumetric architectures, transformers, and foundation models, together with longitudinal, multimodal, and graph-based extensions. Across these approaches, validity depends on clinically meaningful target labels, preprocessing that excludes test-set information, participant-level data separation, and evaluation beyond discrimination. Two-dimensional methods remain useful when data or computing resources are limited, although they do not preserve continuous whole-volume context. Three-dimensional and hybrid models incorporate more volumetric information, but anatomical fidelity still depends on representation and validation. Current AD-specific studies do not show that transformers or foundation models consistently outperform convolutional or hybrid alternatives. Stronger clinical evidence will require external testing, calibrated and uncertainty-aware predictions, transparent reporting, and prospective assessment within the intended workflow.
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.