Cited by 103Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Alzheimer Disease and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia: Automatic Classification Based on Cortical Atrophy for Single-Subject Diagnosis

Open access
Möller, Christiane, Pijnenburg, Yolande A. L., van der Flier, Wiesje M., Versteeg, Adriaan, Tijms, Betty, de Munck, Jan C., Hafkemeijer, Anne, Rombouts, Serge A. R. B. +7 more·2016·Radiology

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of an image-based classifier to distinguish between Alzheimer disease (AD) and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) in individual patients by using gray matter (GM) density maps computed from standard T1-weighted structural images obtained with multiple imagers and with independent training and prediction data. Materials and Methods The local institutional review board approved the study. Eighty-four patients with AD, 51 patients with bvFTD, and 94 control subjects were divided into independent training (n = 115) and prediction (n = 114) sets with identical diagnosis and imager type distributions. Training of a support vector machine (SVM) classifier used diagnostic status and GM density maps and produced voxelwise discrimination maps. Discriminant function analysis was used to estimate suitability of the extracted weights for single-subject classification in the prediction set. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated for image-based classifiers and neuropsychological z scores. Results Training accuracy of the SVM was 85% for patients with AD versus control subjects, 72% for patients with bvFTD versus control subjects, and 79% for patients with AD versus patients with bvFTD (P ≤ .029). Single-subject diagnosis in the prediction set when using the discrimination maps yielded accuracies of 88% for patients with AD versus control subjects, 85% for patients with bvFTD versus control subjects, and 82% for patients with AD versus patients with bvFTD, with a good to excellent AUC (range, 0.81-0.95; P ≤ .001). Machine learning-based categorization of AD versus bvFTD based on GM density maps outperforms classification based on neuropsychological test results. Conclusion The SVM can be used in single-subject discrimination and can help the clinician arrive at a diagnosis. The SVM can be used to distinguish disease-specific GM patterns in patients with AD and those with bvFTD as compared with normal aging by using common T1-weighted structural MR imaging. (©) RSNA, 2015.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2015150220

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Machine learning techniques have been applied to distinguish bvFTD from cognitively normal controls, Alzheimer Disease or other psychiatric and neurologic disorders on an individual level using MRI-based features.

    “Recently, machine learning techniques have been applied to distinguish between bvFTD and Cognitively Normal Subjects (CNCs), Alzheimer Disease or other psychiatric and neurologic disorders on an individual level using MRI-based features. 9-17”

    From MRI data-driven algorithm for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Training-set results (p. 11) report MRI-based SVM classification of bvFTD versus controls and versus Alzheimer disease; the paper also describes its approach as single-subject classification (Radiology, p. 15). It does not report distinguishing bvFTD from other psychiatric or neurologic disorders: the Discussion (p. 14) says it used only binary classifiers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior machine learning studies achieved moderate to high accuracy distinguishing bvFTD.

    “In general, they achieved moderate to high accuracy distinguishing bvFTD.”
  • Previous studies classified bvFTD from a control group.

    “Previous studies classified bvFTD from a control group. 9-13”
  • 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).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Möller, C., Pijnenburg, Y. A. L., van der Flier, W. M., Versteeg, A., Tijms, B., de Munck, J. C., Hafkemeijer, A., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., van der Grond, J., van Swieten, J., Dopper, E., Scheltens, P., Barkhof, F., Vrenken, H., & Wink, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2016-06
Volume
279
Issue
3
Pages
838-848
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2192985207
Cited by
103
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Stichting Dioraphte
  • Alzheimer Nederland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, cortical atrophy, support vector machine, T1-weighted structural MRI, differential diagnosis
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Atrophy, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, ROC Curve, Frontotemporal Dementia, Support Vector Machine, Gray Matter

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