Cited by 17Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Ten years of image analysis and machine learning competitions in dementia

Open access
Bron, Esther E., Klein, Stefan, Reinke, Annika, Papma, Janne M., Maier-Hein, Lena, Alexander, Daniel C., Oxtoby, Neil P.·2022·NeuroImage

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119083

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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