Ten years of image analysis and machine learning competitions in dementia
Open accessAbstract
Machine learning methods exploiting multi-parametric biomarkers, especially based on neuroimaging, have huge potential to improve early diagnosis of dementia and to predict which individuals are at-risk of developing dementia. To benchmark algorithms in the field of machine learning and neuroimaging in dementia and assess their potential for use in clinical practice and clinical trials, seven grand challenges have been organized in the last decade: MIRIAD (2012), Alzheimer's Disease Big Data DREAM (2014), CADDementia (2014), Machine Learning Challenge (2014), MCI Neuroimaging (2017), TADPOLE (2017), and the Predictive Analytics Competition (2019). Based on two challenge evaluation frameworks, we analyzed how these grand challenges are complementing each other regarding research questions, datasets, validation approaches, results and impact. The seven grand challenges addressed questions related to screening, clinical status estimation, prediction and monitoring in (pre-clinical) dementia. There was little overlap in clinical questions, tasks and performance metrics. Whereas this aids providing insight on a broad range of questions, it also limits the validation of results across challenges. The validation process itself was mostly comparable between challenges, using similar methods for ensuring objective comparison, uncertainty estimation and statistical testing. In general, winning algorithms performed rigorous data pre-processing and combined a wide range of input features. Despite high state-of-the-art performances, most of the methods evaluated by the challenges are not clinically used. To increase impact, future challenges could pay more attention to statistical analysis of which factors (i.e., features, models) relate to higher performance, to clinical questions beyond Alzheimer's disease, and to using testing data beyond the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Grand challenges would be an ideal venue for assessing the generalizability of algorithm performance to unseen data of other cohorts. Key for increasing impact in this way are larger testing data sizes, which could be reached by sharing algorithms rather than data to exploit data that cannot be shared. Given the potential and lessons learned in the past ten years, we are excited by the prospects of grand challenges in machine learning and neuroimaging for the next ten years and beyond.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previous ML methods have largely focused on leveraging neuroimaging data to distinguish individuals with normal cognition from those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, with AD being the main etiology.
“Previous ML methods have largely focused on leveraging neuroimaging data to distinguish individuals with normal cognition (NC) from those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, with AD being the main etiology given its ubiquity in dementia diagnosis29,30.”
From AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
Cites
Cole, J. H., Poudel, R. P. K., Tsagkrasoulis, D., Caan, M. W. A., Steves, C., Spector, T. D., & Montana, G. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.059 · Cited by 872 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several approaches for biomarker-based screening have been proposed (Licher et al., 2019; Cole et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019).”
Rathore, S., Habes, M., Iftikhar, M. A., Shacklett, A., & Davatzikos, C. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.057 · Cited by 622 · see citing works
Grueso, S., & Viejo-Sobera, R. (2021) · Alzheimer's Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00900-w · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Alzheimer’s Dementia Recognition Through Spontaneous Speech: The ADReSS Challenge
Luz, S., Haider, F., Fuente, S. D. L., Fromm, D., & MacWhinney, B. (2020) · Interspeech 2020 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2020-2571 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Ansart, M., Epelbaum, S., Bassignana, G., Bône, A., Bottani, S., Cattai, T., Couronné, R., Faouzi, J., Koval, I., Louis, M., et al. (2021) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101848 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Imaging plus X: multimodal models of neurodegenerative disease
Oxtoby, N. P., & Alexander, D. C. (2017) · Current Opinion in Neurology · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000460 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing atrophy measurement techniques in dementia: results from the MIRIAD atrophy challenge
Cash, D. M., Frost, C., Iheme, L. O., Ünay, D., Kandemir, M., Fripp, J., Salvado, O., Bourgeat, P., Reuter, M., Fischl, B., et al. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.087 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep learning for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: A survey
Khojaste-Sarakhsi, M., Haghighi, S. S., Ghomi, S. M. T. F., & Marchiori, E. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102332 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data
Xue, C., Kowshik, S. S., Lteif, D., Puducheri, S., Jasodanand, V. H., Zhou, O. T., Walia, A. S., Guney, O. B., Zhang, J. D., Poésy, S., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03118-z · Cited by 182 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bron, E. E., Klein, S., Reinke, A., Papma, J. M., Maier-Hein, L., Alexander, D. C., & Oxtoby, N. P.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- German Cancer Research Center (DE)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bron, Esther E.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 253
- Pages
- 119083
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4220758344
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- UK Research and Innovation
- Horizon 2020 (666992)
- UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council (MR/S03546X/1)
- Nederlandse Hartstichting (2018B011, CVON2012-06, CVON2018-28)
- UCLH Biomedical Research Centre
- EU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- dementia, societal challenges, machine learning competition, neuroimaging biomarkers, Alzheimer's disease, early diagnosis, preclinical dementia, validation framework, benchmarking, generalizability, data sharing, tadpoles, ADNI
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Early Diagnosis, Neuroimaging, 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