Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine learning of neuroimaging for assisted diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review

Open access
Pellegrini, Enrico, Ballerini, Lucia, Hernandez, Maria del C. Valdes, Chappell, Francesca M., González‐Castro, Victor, Anblagan, Devasuda, Danso, Samuel, Muñoz‐Maniega, Susana, Job, Dominic, Pernet, Cyril, Mair, Grant, MacGillivray, Tom J., Trucco, Emanuele, Wardlaw, Joanna M.·2018·Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring

Abstract

Introduction: Advanced machine learning methods might help to identify dementia risk from neuroimaging, but their accuracy to date is unclear. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature, 2006 to late 2016, for machine learning studies differentiating healthy aging from dementia of various types, assessing study quality, and comparing accuracy at different disease boundaries. Results: Of 111 relevant studies, most assessed Alzheimer's disease versus healthy controls, using AD Neuroimaging Initiative data, support vector machines, and only T1‐weighted sequences. Accuracy was highest for differentiating Alzheimer's disease from healthy controls and poor for differentiating healthy controls versus mild cognitive impairment versus Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment converters versus nonconverters. Accuracy increased using combined data types, but not by data source, sample size, or machine learning method. Discussion: Machine learning does not differentiate clinically relevant disease categories yet. More diverse data sets, combinations of different types of data, and close clinical integration of machine learning would help to advance the field.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.07.004

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Li Y., 2015, Neural Information Processing. ICONIP 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9492, 280

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Pellegrini, E., Ballerini, L., Hernandez, M. D. C. V., Chappell, F. M., González‐Castro, V., Anblagan, D., Danso, S., Muñoz‐Maniega, S., Job, D., Pernet, C., Mair, G., MacGillivray, T. J., Trucco, E., & Wardlaw, J. M.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
519-535
ISSN
2352-8729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2886445457
Cited by
292
References
28
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M005976/1)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Machine learning of neuroimaging for assisted diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.dadm.2018.07.004
The paper
Pellegrini, E., Ballerini, L., Hernandez, M. D. C. V., Chappell, F. M., González‐Castro, V., Anblagan, D., Danso, S., Muñoz‐Maniega, S., Job, D., Pernet, C., Mair, G., MacGillivray, T. J., Trucco, E., & Wardlaw, J. M. (2018). Machine learning of neuroimaging for assisted diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2018.07.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.