Cited by 64Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Multi-stage Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease with Incomplete Multimodal Data via Multi-task Deep Learning

Open access
Thung, Kim-Han, Yap, Pew-Thian, Shen, Dinggang·2017·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

Utilization of biomedical data from multiple modalities improves the diagnostic accuracy of neurodegenerative diseases. However, multi-modality data are often incomplete because not all data can be collected for every individual. When using such incomplete data for diagnosis, current approaches for addressing the problem of missing data, such as imputation, matrix completion and multi-task learning, implicitly assume linear data-to-label relationship, therefore limiting their performances. We thus propose multi-task deep learning for incomplete data, where prediction tasks that are associated with different modality combinations are learnt jointly to improve the performance of each task. Specifically, we devise a multi-input multi-output deep learning framework, and train our deep network subnet-wise, partially updating its weights based on the availability of modality data. The experimental results using the ADNI dataset show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-67558-9_19

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Six of the seven early fusion studies that compared fusion to single modality models showed an improvement in performance when using fusion, and the remaining one achieved the same performance but reduced standard deviation.

    “Six of these studies showed an improvement in performance when using fusion25,26,28,29,31,33, and the remaining one achieved the same performance but reduced standard deviation27, alluding to a model with better stability.”

    From Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

    Citation 27 is attached to the claim that fusion achieved the same performance as a single modality but reduced standard deviation. The Results and Discussions section instead says MRI+PET generally had higher classification accuracy than MRI alone; it reports mean accuracy as the evaluation metric and does not report a reduction in standard deviation. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prediction of Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer's disease based on ADNI dataset is frequently investigated, but predictive accuracy varies, and many studies do not discuss which input modalities or features contributed most to prediction.

    “For example, the prediction of Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer’s disease based on the ADNI dataset is frequently investigated27–32. But their predictive accuracy varies, and many studies do not discuss which input modalities or features contributed most to the prediction.”

    From Orchestrating explainable artificial intelligence for multimodal and longitudinal data in medical imaging (2024) · cites this paper as [28]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Thung et al. conducted image-image fusion of PET and MRI images using a joint fusion approach, but because they concatenated clinical and imaging features into one single feature vector before feeding into their neural network, their approach was categorized as early fusion.

    “Thung et al.25 conducted image-image fusion of PET and MRI images using a joint fusion approach, but since they concatenated clinical and imaging features into one single feature vector before feeding into their neural network, we categorized their approach as early fusion.”

    From Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The complexity of the non-imaging data used in multimodal fusion studies was limited, with most studies using basic demographic information (age, gender), a limited range of categorical clinical history (e.g., hypertension, smoking status), or disease-specific features strongly associated with the disease of interest (e.g., APOE4 for Alzheimer's, PSA for prostate cancer).

    “The complexity of the non-imaging data in multimodal fusion work was limited, particularly in the context of available feature-rich and time-series data in the EHR. Instead, most studies focused primarily on basic demographic information such as age and gender25,27,39, a limited range of categorical clinical history such as hypertension or smoking status32,34 or disease-specific clinical features”
  • Fusion strategies were often applied to the diagnosis and prediction of Alzheimer's disease.

    “For example, fusion strategies were often applied to the diagnosis and prediction of Alzheimer’s disease25,28,33,36,41.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thung, K.-H., Yap, P.-T., & Shen, D.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Shen, Dinggang
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2017
Volume
10553
Pages
160-168
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W2755657284
Cited by
63
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4
FWCI
15.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG042599, R01AG041721)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH100217)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS093842)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB022880, R01EB008374, R01EB009634, R01EB006733)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, multimodal data, missing data, multi-task deep learning, multi-input multi-output neural network, neurodegenerative diseases, ADNI dataset

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review