The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive markers for AD in a multi-modality framework: An analysis of MCI progression in the ADNI population
Open accessAbstract
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases affect over 20 million people worldwide, and this number is projected to significantly increase in the coming decades. Proposed imaging-based markers have shown steadily improving levels of sensitivity/specificity in classifying individual subjects as AD or normal. Several of these efforts have utilized statistical machine learning techniques, using brain images as input, as means of deriving such AD-related markers. A common characteristic of this line of research is a focus on either (1) using a single imaging modality for classification, or (2) incorporating several modalities, but reporting separate results for each. One strategy to improve on the success of these methods is to leverage all available imaging modalities together in a single automated learning framework. The rationale is that some subjects may show signs of pathology in one modality but not in another – by combining all available images a clearer view of the progression of disease pathology will emerge. Our method is based on the Multi-Kernel Learning (MKL) framework, which allows the inclusion of an arbitrary number of views of the data in a maximum margin, kernel learning framework. The principal innovation behind MKL is that it learns an optimal combination of kernel (similarity) matrices while simultaneously training a classifier. In classification experiments MKL outperformed an SVM trained on all available features by 3% – 4%. We are especially interested in whether such markers are capable of identifying early signs of the disease. To address this question, we have examined whether our multi-modal disease marker (MMDM) can predict conversion from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to AD. Our experiments reveal that this measure shows significant group differences between MCI subjects who progressed to AD, and those who remained stable for 3 years. These differences were most significant in MMDMs based on imaging data. We also discuss the relationship between our MMDM and an individual’s conversion from MCI to AD.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes.
Braak, H., & Braak, E. (1991) · Acta Neuropathologica · doi:10.1007/bf00308809 · Cited by 16,123
Voxel-Based Morphometry—The Methods
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2000) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0582 · Cited by 8,676
A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm
Ashburner, J. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007 · Cited by 8,122
Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Neal, R. M. (2007) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2007.s518 · Cited by 4,571
Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer's disease with Pittsburgh Compound‐B
Klunk, W. E., Engler, H., Nordberg, A., Wang, Y., Blomqvist, G., Holt, D. P., Bergström, M., Savitcheva, I., Huang, G., Estrada, S., et al. (2004) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.20009 · Cited by 4,496
Principles of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology
(2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195134759.001.0001 · Cited by 1,448
Cortical midline structures and the self
Northoff, G., & Bermpohl, F. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.004 · Cited by 1,446
Reiman, E. M., Caselli, R. J., Yun, L. S., Chen, K., Bandy, D., Minoshima, S., Thibodeau, S. N., & Osborne, D. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199603213341202 · Cited by 1,366
Cited by
Multimodal classification of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment
Zhang, D., Wang, Y., Zhou, L., Yuan, H., & Shen, D. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.008 · Cited by 1,314
Orrù, G., Pettersson-Yeo, W., Marquand, A. F., Sartori, G., & Mechelli, A. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.01.004 · Cited by 1,012
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: A review of papers published since its inception
Weiner, M. W., Veitch, D. P., Aisen, P. S., Beckett, L. A., Cairns, N. J., Green, R. C., Harvey, D., Jack, C. R., Jagust, W., Liu, E., et al. (2013) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.05.1769 · Cited by 1,010
Hierarchical Feature Representation and Multimodal Fusion with Deep Learning for AD/MCI Diagnosis
Suk, H.-I., Lee, S.-W., & Shen, D. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.077 · Cited by 968
“We argue that this joint feature representation discriminates our method from the previous multimodal methods (Hinrichs et al., 2011; Suk and Shen, 2013; Zhang et al., 2011), which first extracted features from each modality independently, and then combined them through kernel machines.”
InfluentialSingle subject prediction of brain disorders in neuroimaging: Promises and pitfalls
Arbabshirani, M. R., Plis, S., Sui, J., & Calhoun, V. D. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.079 · Cited by 912
Metadata
- Authors
- Hinrichs, C., Singh, V., Xu, G., & Johnson, S. C.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 574-589
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128251808
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Predictive markers for AD in a multi-modality framework: An analysis of MCI progression in the ADNI population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.081
- The paper
- Hinrichs, C., Singh, V., Xu, G., & Johnson, S. C. (2011). Predictive markers for AD in a multi-modality framework: An analysis of MCI progression in the ADNI population. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.081
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.