| Literature DB >> 30842994 |
Subrata Kar1, D Dutta Majumder2,3.
Abstract
This study examined early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by diffusion tensor visualization-based methodology and neuro-fuzzy tools. Initially, we proposed a model for the early detection of AD using the measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient, fractional anisotropy, and gray matter, which can determine neurological disorder patterns and abnormalities in brain white matter. These are used as input parameters into fuzzy tools, and using fuzzy rules, we evaluate the AD score as an output variable that provides a useful platform to physicians in determining the status of the disease. In the second stage, we present an investigative study on AD and used the neuro-fuzzy classification system for pattern recognition of either AD or healthy control. The experimental results are from 20 samples (14 for training, 3 for validation, and 3 for testing) used in an artificial neural network classification system. The neural network is trained with a training algorithm and the performance of the training algorithm is obtained by executing a fuzzy expert system. Out of 20 patients, 9 are AD patients and 11 are healthy control patients. We present a neuro-fuzzy tool as a better classifier for early detection of AD and obtain a satisfactory performance with 100% accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; apparent diffusion coefficient; diffusion tensor imaging; fractional anisotropy; gray matter; neuro-fuzzy classification system
Year: 2019 PMID: 30842994 PMCID: PMC6400114 DOI: 10.3233/ADR-180082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Rep ISSN: 2542-4823
Statistical results of features
| Features | Alzheimer’s disease | Healthy control |
| ADC (10-3mm2/s) | 1.97±0.82 | 0.69±0.25 |
| FA | 0.53±0.05 | 0.89±0.35 |
| GM | 48.67±2.50 | 43.45±50.23 |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; FA, fractional anisotropy; GM, gray matter.
Database of the individual patient
| Patient number | ADC (10-3mm2/s) | FA | GM |
| Patient-I | 0.0776 | 0.0326 | –79.59 |
| Patient-II | 0.3838 | 0.4613 | –18.07 |
| Patient-III | 0.69 | 0.89 | 43.45 |
| Patient-IV | 0.9962 | 1.3187 | 104.97 |
| Patient-V | 1.3024 | 1.7474 | 166.49 |
| Patient-VI | –1.042 | 0.3464 | 38.77 |
| Patient-VII | –0.038 | 0.4076 | 42.07 |
| Patient-VIII | 0.966 | 0.4688 | 45.37 |
| Patient-IX | 1.97 | 0.53 | 48.67 |
| Patient-X | 2.974 | 0.5912 | 51.97 |
| Patient-XI | 3.978 | 0.6524 | 55.27 |
| Patient-XII | 4.982 | 0.7136 | 58.57 |
| Patient-XIII | 5.986 | 0.7748 | 61.87 |
| Patient-XIV | 6.99 | 0.836 | 65.17 |
| Patient-XV | 7.994 | 0.8972 | 68.47 |
| Patient-XVI | 8.998 | 0.9584 | 71.77 |
| Patient-XVII | 10.002 | 1.0196 | 75.07 |
| Patient-XVIII | 11.006 | 1.0808 | 78.37 |
| Patient-XIX | 12.01 | 1.142 | 81.67 |
| Patient-XX | 13.014 | 1.2032 | 84.97 |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; FA, fractional anisotropy; GM, gray matter.
Summary of subject demographics and dementia status
| Alzheimer’s disease | Healthy controls | |
| Number of subjects | 95 | 55 |
| Sex (M/F) | 60/35 | 30/25 |
| Age | 80.4 (69–96) | 76.47 (65–89) |
| Education | 2.66 (1–5) | 2.93 (1–5) |
| Socioeconomic status | 2.8 (1–5) | 2.9 (1–5) |
| Mini-Mental State Examination | 21.92 (15–28) | 28.5 (28–30) |
Fig.1Segmentation results of a normal individual and an AD patient. AD, Alzheimer’s disease; GM, gray matter; WM, white matter; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid.
Fig.2Proposed methodology for AD classification process by using neuro-fuzzy system. AD, Alzheimer’s disease; ANN, artificial neural network.
Fig.3(a) T1weighted MR image of brain of an AD patient, (b) T2weighted MR image of brain of the same AD patient, and (c) CT image of brain of an AD patient.
Fig.4Ventricular region of MR and CT images.
Fig.5Contour of the ventricular region of MR and CT images.
Fig.6Fuzzy inference system.
Fuzzy set of input variable ‘Apparent diffusion coefficient’
| Input field | Support set | Fuzzy set |
| Apparent diffusion coefficient | –1–1 | Very Small |
| 0–6 | Small | |
| 3–9 | Medium | |
| 6–15 | High |
Fig.7Membership function for apparent diffusion coefficient.
Fuzzy set of input variable ‘Fractional anisotropy’
| Input field | Support set | Fuzzy set |
| Fractional anisotropy | 0–0.5 | Very Low |
| 0.25–0.75 | Low | |
| 0.5–1 | Medium | |
| 0.75–2 | High |
Fig.8Membership function for fractional anisotropy.
Fuzzy set of input variable ‘Gray matter’
| Input field | Support set | Fuzzy set |
| Gray matter | –100–20 | Very Small |
| –60–100 | Small | |
| 40–140 | Medium | |
| 90–200 | High |
Fig.9Membership function for gray matter.
Fuzzy set of output variable ‘Alzheimer’s disease score’
| Output field | Support set | Fuzzy set |
| Alzheimer’s disease score | 0 –60 | Low |
| 50 –100 | High |
Fig.10Membership function for AD score.
Rule base of the system
| Rule no. | ADC | FA | GM | AD score |
| Rule 1 | Very Small | Very Low | Very Small | Low |
| Rule 2 | Very Small | Low | Small | High |
| Rule 3 | Very Small | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Rule 4 | Very Small | High | High | High |
| Rule 5 | Small | Very Low | Very Small | Low |
| Rule 6 | Small | Low | Small | High |
| Rule 7 | Small | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Rule 8 | Small | High | High | High |
| Rule 9 | Medium | Very Low | Very Small | Low |
| Rule 10 | Medium | Low | Small | High |
| Rule 11 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Rule 12 | Medium | High | High | High |
| Rule 13 | High | Very Low | Very Small | Low |
| Rule 14 | High | Low | Small | High |
| Rule 15 | High | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Rule 16 | High | High | High | High |
Rule 1: If the ADC is Very Small, FA is Very Low, and GM is Very Small, then AD score is Low. Rule 2: If the ADC is Very Small, FA is Low, and GM is Small, then AD score is High. Rule 4: If the ADC is Very Small, FA is High, and GM is High, then AD score is High. Rule 6: If the ADC is Small, FA is Low, and GM is Small, then AD score is High. Rule 8: If the ADC is Small, FA is High, and GM is High, then AD score is High. Rule 14: If the ADC is High, FA is Low, and GM is Small, then AD score is High. Rule 16: If the ADC is High, FA is High, and GM is High, then AD score is High. ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; FA, fractional anisotropy; GM, gray matter; AD, Alzheimer’s disease.
Tested values of the system
| Patient number | ADC (10-3mm2/s) | FA | GM | AD Score (Risk status %) |
| Patient-I | 0.0776 | 0.0326 | –79.59 | 30 |
| Patient-II | 0.3838 | 0.4613 | –18.07 | 59.8 |
| Patient-III | 0.69 | 0.89 | 43.45 | 30 |
| Patient-IV | 0.9962 | 1.3187 | 104.97 | 75 |
| Patient-V | 1.3024 | 1.7474 | 166.49 | 75 |
| Patient-VI | –1.042 | 0.3464 | 38.77 | 75 |
| Patient-VII | –0.038 | 0.4076 | 42.07 | 75 |
| Patient-VIII | 0.966 | 0.4688 | 45.37 | 75 |
| Patient-IX | 1.97 | 0.53 | 48.67 | 64.7 |
| Patient-X | 2.974 | 0.5912 | 51.97 | 58.5 |
| Patient-XI | 3.978 | 0.6524 | 55.27 | 52.6 |
| Patient-XII | 4.982 | 0.7136 | 58.57 | 41.7 |
| Patient-XIII | 5.986 | 0.7748 | 61.87 | 30 |
| Patient-XIV | 6.99 | 0.836 | 65.17 | 30 |
| Patient-XV | 7.994 | 0.8972 | 68.47 | 30 |
| Patient-XVI | 8.998 | 0.9584 | 71.77 | 30 |
| Patient-XVII | 10.002 | 1.0196 | 75.07 | 50 |
| Patient-XVIII | 11.006 | 1.0808 | 78.37 | 50 |
| Patient-XIX | 12.01 | 1.142 | 81.67 | 50 |
| Patient-XX | 13.014 | 1.2032 | 84.97 | 50 |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; FA, fractional anisotropy; GM, gray matter; AD, Alzheimer’s disease.
Fig.11Developed fuzzy rules.
Fig.12Calculation of the value of AD score for the values of apparent diffusion coefficient = –0.038, fractional anisotropy = 0.4076 and gray matter = 42.67.
Fig.13Surface viewer of apparent diffusion coefficient and fractional anisotropy.
Fig.15Surface viewer of fractional anisotropy and gray matter.
Fig.16Neural network model.
Confusion matrix of clinical data sets
| Actual | Predicted | |
| Alzheimer’s desease (Positive) | Healthy control (Negative) | |
| Alzheimer’s disease (Positive) | 9 (TP) | 0 (FP) |
| Healthy control (Negative) | 0 (FN) | 11 (TN) |
Confusion matrix of predictive model of Alzheimer’s disease
| Predictive model | Partition set | Alzheimer’s disease (Nr1) | Healthy control (Nr2) | Total no. (N) | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| ANN | Training set | 08 | 06 | 14 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Validation set | 01 | 02 | 03 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Testing set | 0 | 03 | 03 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Fig.17Results from neural network.
Fig.19Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.