Cited by 61Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Toward an interpretable Alzheimer’s disease diagnostic model with regional abnormality representation via deep learning

Lee, Eunho, Choi, Jun-Sik, Kim, Minjeong, Suk, Heung-Il·2019·NeuroImage

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a novel method for magnetic resonance imaging based Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnosis that systematically integrates voxel-based, region-based, and patch-based approaches into a unified framework. Specifically, we parcellate the brain into predefined regions based on anatomical knowledge (i.e., templates) and derive complex nonlinear relationships among voxels, whose intensities denote volumetric measurements, within each region. Unlike existing methods that use cubical or rectangular shapes, we consider the anatomical shapes of regions as atypical patches. Using complex nonlinear relationships among voxels in each region learned by deep neural networks, we extract a "regional abnormality representation." We then make a final clinical decision by integrating the regional abnormality representations over the entire brain. It is noteworthy that the regional abnormality representations allow us to interpret and understand the symptomatic observations of a subject with AD or MCI by mapping and visualizing these observations in the brain space. On the baseline MRI dataset from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance for four binary classification tasks and one three-class classification task. Additionally, we conducted exhaustive experiments and analysis to validate the efficacy and potential of our method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116113

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, E., Choi, J.-S., Kim, M., & Suk, H.-I.
Affiliations
  • Korea University (KR)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Corresponding author
Suk, Heung-Il
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
202
Pages
116113
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969595880
Cited by
61
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion (2017-0-01779)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (NRF - 2016M3A9E9941946)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, mild cognitive impairment, MRI diagnosis, explainable deep learning, brain parcellation, ADNI cohort
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cognitive Dysfunction

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