Cited by 36Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Contrastive Learning for Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Brain 18F-FDG PET

Open access
Chen, Yonglin, Wang, Huabin, Zhang, Gong, Liu, Xiao, Huang, Wei, Han, Xianjun, Li, Xuejun, Martin, Melanie +1 more·2023·IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

Abstract

Brain 18F-FDG PET images are commonly-known materials for effectively predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the data volume of PET is usually insufficient, which is unfavorable to train an accurate AD prediction networks. Furthermore, the PET image is noisy with low signal-to-noise ratio, and simultaneously the feature (metabolic abnormality) used for predicting AD in PET image is not always obvious. Therefore, a contrastive-based learning method is proposed to address the challenges of PET image inherently possessed. Firstly, the slices of 3D PET image are amplified by cropping the image of anchors (i.e., an augmented version of the same image) to generate extended training data. Meanwhile, contrastive loss is adopted to enlarge inter-class feature distances and reduce intra-class feature differences using subject fuzzy labels as supervised information. Secondly, we construct a double convolutional hybrid attention module to enhance the network to learn different perceptual domains where two convolutional layers with different convolutional kernels ($7\times 7$ and $5\times 5$) are constructed. Moreover, we recommend a diagnosis mechanism by analyzing the consistency of predicted result for PET slices alone with clinical neuropsychological assessment to achieve a better AD diagnosis. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-arts for brain 18F-FDG PET images, and hence demonstrate the advantage of the method in effectively predicting AD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jbhi.2022.3231905

Cites

30 of 30 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, G., Liu, X., Huang, W., Han, X., Li, X., Martin, M., & Tao, L.
Affiliations
  • Anhui University (CN)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Winnipeg (CA)
Venue
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2023-04
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
1735-1746
ISSN
  • 2168-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2208
OpenAlex
W4312247626
Cited by
36
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972001, 62106005)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (1908085MF209)
  • Natural Science Foundation for the Higher Education Institutions of Anhui Province (2022AH050091)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease prediction, 18F-FDG PET, contrastive learning, brain glucose metabolism, image augmentation, fuzzy labels, hybrid attention module, convolution kernels, neuropsychological assessment, low signal-to-noise ratio

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