Cited by 30Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Image Segmentation Techniques

Anomaly Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease in PET Images Using an Unsupervised Adversarial Deep Learning Model

Open access
Baydargil, Husnu Baris, Park, Jang-Sik, Kang, Do-Young·2021·Applied Sciences

Abstract

In this study, the anomaly analysis of Alzheimer’s disease using positron emission tomography (PET) images using an unsupervised proposed adversarial model is investigated. The model consists of three parts: a parallel-network encoder, which is comprised of a convolutional pipeline and a dilated convolutional pipeline that extracts global and local features and concatenates them, a decoder that reconstructs the input image from the obtained feature vector, and a discriminator that distinguishes if the input image image is real or fake. The hypothesis is that if the proposed model is trained with only normal brain images, the corresponding construction loss for normal images should be minimal. However, if the input image belongs to a class that is designated as an anomaly that which the model is not trained with, then the construction loss will be high. This will reflect during the anomaly score comparison between the normal and the anomalous image. A multi-case analysis is performed for three major classes using the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset, Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal control. The base parallel-encoder network shows better classification accuracy than the benchmark models, and the proposed model that is built on the parallel model outperforms the benchmark anomaly detection models. The proposed model gave out 96.03% and 75.21% in classification and area under the curve score, respectively. Additionally, a qualitative evaluation done by using Fréchet inception distance gave a better score than the state-of-the-art by three points.

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 · 10.3390/app11052187

Cites

61 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?

  • Baydargil et al.'s unsupervised adversarial parallel model for AD anomaly analysis exhibits classification accuracy of 96.03% and AUC of 75.21% in distinguishing AD, MCI, and normal control groups.

    “The model exhibits robust classification with rates and area under the curve (AUC) scores reaching 96.03% and 75.21%, respectively, underscoring its effective discriminative performance.”

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 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; Bengio, Y. Generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 8-13 December 2014; pp. 2672-2680.
  2. Akcay, S.; Atapour-Abarghouei, A.; Breckon, T.P. GANomaly: Semisupervised anomaly detection via adversarial training. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Perth, Australia, 2-6 December 2018; pp. 622-637.
  3. Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthinter, T.; Nessler, B. VGANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA, 4-9 December 2017; pp. 6629-6640.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baydargil, H. B., Park, J.-S., & Kang, D.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Kyungsung University (KR)
  • Dong-A University (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Park, Jang-Sik
  • Kang, Do-Young
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-03-02
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
2187
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3133532155
Cited by
30
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Korean Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2018R1A2B2008178)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, PET images, anomaly detection, generative adversarial networks, parallel encoder, dilated convolution, mild cognitive impairment, ADNI dataset, Fréchet Inception Distance, brain image classification

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