Cited by 54Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

Five-class differential diagnostics of neurodegenerative diseases using random undersampling boosting

Open access
Tong, Tong, Ledig, Christian, Guerrero, Ricardo, Schuh, Andreas, Koikkalainen, Juha, Tolonen, Antti, Rhodius, Hanneke, Barkhof, Frederik +11 more·2017·NeuroImage: Clinical

Abstract

Differentiating between different types of neurodegenerative diseases is not only crucial in clinical practice when treatment decisions have to be made, but also has a significant potential for the enrichment of clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to develop a classification framework for distinguishing the four most common neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobe degeneration, Dementia with Lewy bodies and vascular dementia, as well as patients with subjective memory complaints. Different biomarkers including features from images (volume features, region-wise grading features) and non-imaging features (CSF measures) were extracted for each subject. In clinical practice, the prevalence of different dementia types is imbalanced, posing challenges for learning an effective classification model. Therefore, we propose the use of the RUSBoost algorithm in order to train classifiers and to handle the class imbalance training problem. Furthermore, a multi-class feature selection method based on sparsity is integrated into the proposed framework to improve the classification performance. It also provides a way for investigating the importance of different features and regions. Using a dataset of 500 subjects, the proposed framework achieved a high accuracy of 75.2% with a balanced accuracy of 69.3% for the five-class classification using ten-fold cross validation, which is significantly better than the results using support vector machine or random forest, demonstrating the feasibility of the proposed framework to support clinical decision making.

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.2017.06.012

Cites

67 of 67 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 multimodal framework proposed by Tong et al. (2017), employing RUSBoost to address class imbalance, achieved overall accuracy 75.2% and balanced accuracy 69.3% for five-class dementia classification.

    “the multimodal framework proposed by Tong et al. (2017), which employed the RUSBoost algorithm to address class imbalance, achieved an overall accuracy of 75.2% for the challenging task of five-class dementia classification. However, its balanced accuracy of 69.3%”

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

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tong, T., Ledig, C., Guerrero, R., Schuh, A., Koikkalainen, J., Tolonen, A., Rhodius, H., Barkhof, F., Tijms, B., Lemstra, A. W., Soininen, H., Remes, A. M., Waldemar, G., Hasselbalch, S., Mecocci, P., Baroni, M., Lötjönen, J., Flier, W. V. D., & Rueckert, D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (FI)
  • Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • University of Perugia (IT)
Corresponding author
Tong, Tong
Venue
NeuroImage: Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017
Volume
15
Pages
613-624
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2626479040
Cited by
54
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.04
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)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UEF eRepo (University of Eastern Finland) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEF eRepo (University of Eastern Finland) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (611005-PredictND)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
neurodegenerative diseases, differential diagnosis, Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, vascular dementia, subjective memory complaints, class imbalance, RUSBoost, sparsity, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Support Vector Machine

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