Nikhil Bhagwat1, Jon Pipitone1, Aristotle N. Voineskos1, M. Mallar Chakravarty1. 1. From the Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bhagwat, Chakravarty); the Cerebral Imaging Centre, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Verdun, Que. (Bhagwat, Chakravarty); the Kimel Family Translational Imaging-Genetics Research Lab, Research Imaging Centre, Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ont. (Bhagwat, Pipitone, Voineskos); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Voineskos); and the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Chakravarty), Canada.
Abstract
Background: The development of diagnostic and prognostic tools for Alzheimer disease is complicated by substantial clinical heterogeneity in prodromal stages. Many neuroimaging studies have focused on case–control classification and predicting conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease, but predicting scores from clinical assessments (such as the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale or the Mini Mental State Examination) using MRI data has received less attention. Predicting clinical scores can be crucial in providing a nuanced prognosis and inferring symptomatic severity. Methods: We predicted clinical scores at the individual level using a novel anatomically partitioned artificial neural network (APANN) model. The model combined input from 2 structural MRI measures relevant to the neurodegenerative patterns observed in Alzheimer disease: hippocampal segmentations and cortical thickness. We evaluated the performance of the APANN model with 10 rounds of 10-fold cross-validation in 3 experiments, using cohorts from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): ADNI1, ADNI2 and ADNI1 + 2. Results: Pearson correlation and root mean square error between the actual and predicted scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADNI1: r = 0.60; ADNI2: r = 0.68; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.63) and Mini Mental State Examination (ADNI1: r = 0.52; ADNI2: r = 0.55; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.55) showed that APANN can accurately infer clinical severity from MRI data. Limitations: To rigorously validate the model, we focused primarily on large cross-sectional baseline data sets with only proof-of-concept longitudinal results. Conclusion: The APANN provides a highly robust and scalable framework for predicting clinical severity at the individual level using high-dimensional, multimodal neuroimaging data.
Background: The development of diagnostic and prognostic tools for Alzheimer disease is complicated by substantial clinical heterogeneity in prodromal stages. Many neuroimaging studies have focused on case–control classification and predicting conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease, but predicting scores from clinical assessments (such as the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale or the Mini Mental State Examination) using MRI data has received less attention. Predicting clinical scores can be crucial in providing a nuanced prognosis and inferring symptomatic severity. Methods: We predicted clinical scores at the individual level using a novel anatomically partitioned artificial neural network (APANN) model. The model combined input from 2 structural MRI measures relevant to the neurodegenerative patterns observed in Alzheimer disease: hippocampal segmentations and cortical thickness. We evaluated the performance of the APANN model with 10 rounds of 10-fold cross-validation in 3 experiments, using cohorts from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): ADNI1, ADNI2 and ADNI1 + 2. Results: Pearson correlation and root mean square error between the actual and predicted scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADNI1: r = 0.60; ADNI2: r = 0.68; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.63) and Mini Mental State Examination (ADNI1: r = 0.52; ADNI2: r = 0.55; ADNI1 + 2: r = 0.55) showed that APANN can accurately infer clinical severity from MRI data. Limitations: To rigorously validate the model, we focused primarily on large cross-sectional baseline data sets with only proof-of-concept longitudinal results. Conclusion: The APANN provides a highly robust and scalable framework for predicting clinical severity at the individual level using high-dimensional, multimodal neuroimaging data.
Authors: June Sic Kim; Vivek Singh; Jun Ki Lee; Jason Lerch; Yasser Ad-Dab'bagh; David MacDonald; Jong Min Lee; Sun I Kim; Alan C Evans Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Melissa E Murray; Neill R Graff-Radford; Owen A Ross; Ronald C Petersen; Ranjan Duara; Dennis W Dickson Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Leslie M Shaw; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Timothy G Lesnick; Vernon S Pankratz; Michael C Donohue; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Robert S C Amaral; Min Tae M Park; Gabriel A Devenyi; Vivian Lynn; Jon Pipitone; Julie Winterburn; Sofia Chavez; Mark Schira; Nancy J Lobaugh; Aristotle N Voineskos; Jens C Pruessner; M Mallar Chakravarty Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: N Chow; K S Hwang; S Hurtz; A E Green; J H Somme; P M Thompson; D A Elashoff; C R Jack; M Weiner; L G Apostolova Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Dennis W Dickson; Melissa E Murray; Stephen D Weigand; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Matthew L Senjem; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Joseph E Parisi; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-09-03 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Sergey M Plis; Devon R Hjelm; Ruslan Salakhutdinov; Elena A Allen; Henry J Bockholt; Jeffrey D Long; Hans J Johnson; Jane S Paulsen; Jessica A Turner; Vince D Calhoun Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 4.677