Cited by 47Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Morphometric MRI as a diagnostic biomarker of frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review to determine clinical applicability

Open access
McCarthy, Jillian, Collins, D. Louis, Ducharme, Simon·2018·NeuroImage: Clinical

Abstract

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is difficult to diagnose, due to its heterogeneous nature and overlap in symptoms with primary psychiatric disorders. Brain MRI for atrophy is a key biomarker but lacks sensitivity in the early stage. Morphometric MRI-based measures and machine learning techniques are a promising tool to improve diagnostic accuracy. Our aim was to review the current state of the literature using morphometric MRI to classify FTD and assess its applicability for clinical practice. A search was completed using Pubmed and PsychInfo of studies which conducted a classification of subjects with FTD from non-FTD (controls or another disorder) using morphometric MRI metrics on an individual level, using single or combined approaches. 28 relevant articles were included and systematically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. The studies were categorized based on the type of FTD subjects included and the group(s) against which they were classified. Studies varied considerably in subject selection, MRI methodology, and classification approach, and results are highly heterogeneous. Overall many studies indicate good diagnostic accuracy, with higher performance when differentiating FTD from controls (highest result was accuracy of 100%) than other dementias (highest result was AUC of 0.874). Very few machine learning algorithms have been tested in prospective replication. In conclusion, morphometric MRI with machine learning shows potential as an early diagnostic biomarker of FTD, however studies which use rigorous methodology and validate findings in an independent real-life cohort are necessary before this method can be recommended for use clinically.

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.2018.08.028

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?

  • Most studies of volumetric analytic techniques have focused on the differential diagnosis between FTD, Alzheimer's disease and controls, often yielding diagnostic accuracy in the 80-90% range.

    “Most studies have focused on the differential diagnosis between FTD, Alzheimer's disease and controls, often yielding diagnostic accuracy in the 80-90% range (McCarthy et al. , 2018).”

    From Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders (2020) · cites this paper as McCarthy et al. , 2018

    The Results (Study characteristics) show that most reviewed studies compared FTD or bvFTD with AD or controls. The Discussion says many FTD-versus-control studies exceeded 80% or 90% accuracy, but FTD-versus-AD results were poorer; the Results also describe those results as highly variable. Thus the 80–90% characterization does not hold across the comparisons named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Machine-learning algorithms using MRI volumetry to develop diagnostic classifiers fare well against controls but achieve maximal performance of 82% in separating well-characterized cases of bvFTD from Alzheimer's disease.

    “Machine-learning algorithms using MRI volumetry to develop diagnostic classifiers fare well against controls but achieve maximal performance of 82% in separating wellcharacterized cases of bvFTD from Alzheimer's disease (Moller et al. , 2016; Canu et al. , 2017; McCarthy et al. , 2018).”

    From Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders (2020) · cites this paper as McCarthy et al. , 2018

    The Results sections on bvFTD versus controls and bvFTD versus AD report stronger classification against controls and 82% accuracy for a bvFTD–AD classifier. But the 82% result used cortical thickness, not MRI volumetry; the review describes volumetry as a different measure used in other studies. Table 1 also lists an 84% result for a combined-measures classifier, so 82% is not an unqualified maximum. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior machine learning studies had small sample sizes and training and test cohorts did not come from independent datasets, so clinical applicability remains to be determined.

    “However, sample sizes were small, training and test cohorts did not come from the independent datasets and, therefore, the clinical applicability remains to be determined. 18”
  • The use of machine learning methods for discrimination between FTD syndromes is rarer and often only covers a few subtypes.

    “However, the use of machine learning methods for discrimination between FTD syndromes is rarer (see McCarthy et al., 2018 for review), often only covering a few subtypes (Wilson et al., 2009; Bisenius et al., 2017; Di Benedetto et al., 2022).”
  • The performance of prior machine learning models for differential diagnosis of PPA subtypes has been inconsistent, with few studies reporting high accuracy levels but with small sample sizes.

    “However, the performance of these models has been inconsistent, with few studies reporting high accuracy levels but with small sample sizes (McCarthy et al., 2018).”

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: 1

  1. McInnes M.D.F. Moher D. Thombs B.D. McGrath T.A. Bossuyt P.M. Clifford T. Cohen J.F. Deeks J.J. Gatsonis C. Hooft L. Hunt H.A. Hyde C.J. Korevaar D.A. Leeflang M.M.G. Macaskill P. Reitsma J.B. Rodin R. Rutjes A.W.S. Salameh J.-P. Stevens A. Takwoingi Y. Tonelli M. Weeks L. Whiting P. Willis B.H. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies JAMA 319 2018 388 29362800

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCarthy, J., Collins, D. L., & Ducharme, S.
Affiliations
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Ducharme, Simon
Venue
NeuroImage: Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018
Volume
20
Pages
685-696
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888949922
Cited by
47
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
frontotemporal dementia, diagnostic biomarkers, machine learning classification, early diagnosis, brain atrophy, clinical applicability
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Brain, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Biomarkers, 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