Cited by 249Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Accurate multimodal probabilistic prediction of conversion to Alzheimer’s disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment

Open access
Young, Jonathan, Modat, Marc, Cardoso, Manuel J., Mendelson, Alex, Cash, Dave, Ourselin, Sebastien·2013·NeuroImage Clinical

Abstract

Accurately identifying the patients that have mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who will go on to develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) will become essential as new treatments will require identification of AD patients at earlier stages in the disease process. Most previous work in this area has centred around the same automated techniques used to diagnose AD patients from healthy controls, by coupling high dimensional brain image data or other relevant biomarker data to modern machine learning techniques. Such studies can now distinguish between AD patients and controls as accurately as an experienced clinician. Models trained on patients with AD and control subjects can also distinguish between MCI patients that will convert to AD within a given timeframe (MCI-c) and those that remain stable (MCI-s), although differences between these groups are smaller and thus, the corresponding accuracy is lower. The most common type of classifier used in these studies is the support vector machine, which gives categorical class decisions. In this paper, we introduce Gaussian process (GP) classification to the problem. This fully Bayesian method produces naturally probabilistic predictions, which we show correlate well with the actual chances of converting to AD within 3 years in a population of 96 MCI-s and 47 MCI-c subjects. Furthermore, we show that GPs can integrate multimodal data (in this study volumetric MRI, FDG-PET, cerebrospinal fluid, and APOE genotype with the classification process through the use of a mixed kernel). The GP approach aids combination of different data sources by learning parameters automatically from training data via type-II maximum likelihood, which we compare to a more conventional method based on cross validation and an SVM classifier. When the resulting probabilities from the GP are dichotomised to produce a binary classification, the results for predicting MCI conversion based on the combination of all three types of data show a balanced accuracy of 74%. This is a substantially higher accuracy than could be obtained using any individual modality or using a multikernel SVM, and is competitive with the highest accuracy yet achieved for predicting conversion within three years on the widely used ADNI dataset.

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.nicl.2013.05.004

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Multi-omics machine learning is still at an early stage, yet it has been explored across many application areas.

    “Although ML analysis of multi-omics is still in its embryonic stage, it has already been explored for a wide range of applications, as reported in recent reviews on brain diseases (Garali et al., 2018;Young et al., 2013), diabetes (Kavakiotis et al., 2017), cancers (Borad and LoRusso, 2017;Chaudhary et al., 2017;Wong et al., 2016) cardiovascular disease (Weng et al., 2017), medical imaging (Ericks”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2013

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

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Young, J., Modat, M., Cardoso, M. J., Mendelson, A., Cash, D., & Ourselin, S.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Young, Jonathan
Venue
NeuroImage Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013
Volume
2
Pages
735-745
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978763244
Cited by
249
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H046410/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, conversion prediction, Gaussian process classification, probabilistic forecasting, multimodal data integration, mixed kernel, volumetric MRI, FDG-PET, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, APOE genotype, support vector machine comparison, ADNI

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