Cited by 224Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareStatistical Methods and Inference

A novel relational regularization feature selection method for joint regression and classification in ad diagnosis

Open access
Zhu, Xiaofeng, Suk, Heung-Il, Wang, Li, Lee, Seong-Whan, Shen, Dinggang·2017·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on joint regression and classification for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and propose a new feature selection method by embedding the relational information inherent in the observations into a sparse multi-task learning framework. Specifically, the relational information includes three kinds of relationships (such as feature-feature relation, response-response relation, and sample-sample relation), for preserving three kinds of the similarity, such as for the features, the response variables, and the samples, respectively. To conduct feature selection, we first formulate the objective function by imposing these three relational characteristics along with an ℓ 2,1-norm regularization term, and further propose a computationally efficient algorithm to optimize the proposed objective function. With the dimension-reduced data, we train two support vector regression models to predict the clinical scores of ADAS-Cog and MMSE, respectively, and also a support vector classification model to determine the clinical label. We conducted extensive experiments on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Our experimental results showed the efficacy of the proposed method in enhancing the performances of both clinical scores prediction and disease status identification, compared to 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 · 10.1016/j.media.2015.10.008

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Automatic computer-assisted diagnosis reduces errors caused by subjective judgment and provides a standardization tool to improve diagnosis efficiency.

    “Automatic computer-assisted diagnosis not only reduces errors caused by subjective judgment [8] but also provides an attractive and meaningful standardization tool [9 -11] to improve the ef fi ciency of diagnosis.”

    From DilatedFormer: dilated granularity transformer network for placental maturity grading in ultrasound (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The cited paper is attached to the sentence’s claim that computer-assisted diagnosis provides a standardization tool to improve diagnostic efficiency; the separate claim about subjective-judgment errors is cited to [8]. The Introduction discusses machine-learning methods for identifying diagnostic labels, and the Classification Results report accuracy, but neither passage addresses standardization or diagnostic efficiency (page numbers unavailable). Searches for subjective judgment and standardization or efficiency found no passage establishing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Golub GH Van Loan CF 1996 Matrix Computations 3rd Johns Hopkins University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Suk, H.-I., Wang, L., Lee, S.-W., & Shen, D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Korea University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Seong-Whan
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
38
Pages
205-214
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2175191116
Cited by
224
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 9
FWCI
23.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • NIH (EB006733, EB008374, EB009634, MH100217, AG041721, AG042599)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015R1A2A1A05001867)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61263035 and 61573270)
  • Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2015GXNSFCB139011)
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 › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, feature selection, l2,1-norm regularization, support vector regression, support vector machine classification, ADAS-Cog, Mini-Mental State Examination, neuroimaging biomarkers, ADNI dataset
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Support Vector Machine

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