Cited by 57Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Evaluating the reliability of neurocognitive biomarkers of neurodegenerative diseases across countries: A machine learning approach

Open access
Bachli, M. Belen, Sedeño, Lucas, Ochab, Jeremi K., Piguet, Olivier, Kumfor, Fiona, Reyes, Pablo, Torralva, Teresa, Roca, María +9 more·2020·NeuroImage

Abstract

Accurate early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases represents a growing challenge for current clinical practice. Promisingly, current tools can be complemented by computational decision-support methods to objectively analyze multidimensional measures and increase diagnostic confidence. Yet, widespread application of these tools cannot be recommended unless they are proven to perform consistently and reproducibly across samples from different countries. We implemented machine-learning algorithms to evaluate the prediction power of neurocognitive biomarkers (behavioral and imaging measures) for classifying two neurodegenerative conditions -Alzheimer Disease (AD) and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD)- across three different countries (>200 participants). We use machine-learning tools integrating multimodal measures such as cognitive scores (executive functions and cognitive screening) and brain atrophy volume (voxel based morphometry from fronto-temporo-insular regions in bvFTD, and temporo-parietal regions in AD) to identify the most relevant features in predicting the incidence of the diseases. In the Country-1 cohort, predictions of AD and bvFTD became maximally improved upon inclusion of cognitive screenings outcomes combined with atrophy levels. Multimodal training data from this cohort allowed predicting both AD and bvFTD in the other two novel datasets from other countries with high accuracy (>90%), demonstrating the robustness of the approach as well as the differential specificity and reliability of behavioral and neural markers for each condition. In sum, this is the first study, across centers and countries, to validate the predictive power of cognitive signatures combined with atrophy levels for contrastive neurodegenerative conditions, validating a benchmark for future assessments of reliability and reproducibility.

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.neuroimage.2019.116456

Cites

98 of 98 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?

  • The literature examining binary comparisons of FTD variants is more extensive, individually assessing atrophy and functional and structural connectivity measures.

    “Indeed, the literature examining binary comparisons of FTD variants is more extensive, individually assessing atrophy (Bachli et al., 2020; Bisenius et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2017; Salvatore et al., 2014; Santillo et al., 2013) and functional (Moguilner et al., 2021) and structural (Mahoney et al., 2014; Santillo et al., 2013) connectivity measures.”
  • The choice of parcellation was based on the reproducibility criteria.

    “Thus, by considering the various studies that used the AAL atlas in dementia research, even with ML methods (Asim et al., 2018; Bachli et al., 2020; Castellazzi et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; McMillan et al., 2014; Park et al., 2022; Sedeño et al., 2017), our choice of parcellation was based on the reproducibility criteria.”

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: 2

  1. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG. Pattern Classification. Wiley, editor 2001.
  2. Forman MS, Farmer J, Johnson JK,, 2006 Frontotemporal dementia: clinicopathological correlations. Ann. Neurol 59 (6), 952– 962. 16718704 PMC2629792

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bachli, M. B., Sedeño, L., Ochab, J. K., Piguet, O., Kumfor, F., Reyes, P., Torralva, T., Roca, M., Cardona, J. F., Campo, C. G., Herrera, E., Slachevsky, A., Matallana, D., Manes, F., García, A. M., Ibáñez, A., & Chialvo, D. R.
Affiliations
  • National University of General San Martín (AR)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Jagiellonian University (PL)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (CO)
  • Favaloro University (AR)
  • Universidad del Valle (CO)
  • Universidad Icesi (CO)
  • Universidad del Desarrollo (CL)
Corresponding author
Sedeño, Lucas
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
208
Pages
116456
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995123658
Cited by
57
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Universidad de Chile (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (GBHI ALZ UK-20-639295, R01AG057234)
  • Universidad Nacional de San Martín
  • National Eye Institute
  • Fondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas Prioritarias (15150012)
  • Inter-American Development Bank (2017-1818, 2017-1820)
  • Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (110674455314, 697-2014)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
  • Narodowe Centrum Nauki
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1037746)
  • Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1170010)
  • Fundación INECO
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, brain atrophy, voxel-based morphometry, cognitive screening, executive function, cross-center validation, reproducibility, early diagnosis, decision support, multimodal biomarkers
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Atrophy, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Executive Function, Frontotemporal Dementia

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