| Literature DB >> 33981355 |
Morteza Amini1, MirMohsen Pedram2,3, AliReza Moradi4,5, Mahshad Ouchani6.
Abstract
Using strategies that obtain biomarkers where early symptoms coincide, the early detection of Alzheimer's disease and its complications is essential. Electroencephalogram is a technology that allows thousands of neurons with equal spatial orientation of the duration of cerebral cortex electrical activity to be registered by postsynaptic potential. Therefore, in this paper, the time-dependent power spectrum descriptors are used to diagnose the electroencephalogram signal function from three groups: mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and healthy control test samples. The final feature used in three modes of traditional classification methods is recorded: k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis approaches, and documented results. Finally, for Alzheimer's disease patient classification, the convolutional neural network architecture is presented. The results are indicated using output assessment. For the convolutional neural network approach, the accurate meaning of accuracy is 82.3%. 85% of mild cognitive impairment cases are accurately detected in-depth, but 89.1% of the Alzheimer's disease and 75% of the healthy population are correctly diagnosed. The presented convolutional neural network outperforms other approaches because performance and the k-nearest neighbors' approach is the next target. The linear discriminant analysis and support vector machine were at the low area under the curve values.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33981355 PMCID: PMC8088352 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5511922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Summary of machine learning method for brain disease diagnosis with EEG signal.
| Author | Year | Disease | Feature extraction | Classification | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xin et al. [ | 2021 | Epilepsy | Dimensionality reduction principal component analysis (PCA) | Convolution SVM | The method's accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity reach up to 99.56%, 99.72%, and 99.52%, respectively |
|
| |||||
| Aliyu and Lim [ | 2021 | Epilepsy | Discrete wavelet transforms (DWT) | LSTM network | Reduction of the number of LSTM trainable parameters needed to achieve extreme accuracy |
|
| |||||
| Tuncer [ | 2021 | Epileptic seizure | Nonlinear textural feature extraction (Hamsi hash) |
| This model has an accuracy in the EEG dataset of 99.20% for five classes and has 100.0% accuracy in other conditions |
|
| |||||
| Cicalese et al. [ | 2020 | AD | Pearson correlation coefficient-based feature selection (PCCFS) | LDA | The EEG-fNIRS feature set combination was expected to obtain greater precision (79.31%) by combining its supplementary properties as compared with the EEG (65.52%) or fNIRS alone (58.62%). Moreover, AD development is associated with the right and left parietal lobe |
|
| |||||
| Ferri et al. [ | 2020 | AD | rsEEG + sMRI | Low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) | Classification accuracy of 80%, 85%, and 89% using rsEEG, sMRI, and rsEEG + sMRI features, respectively, discriminates against them |
|
| |||||
| Trambaiolli et al. [ | 2017 | AD | Feature selection (FS) | SVM classifier | Since eliminating 88.76 ± 1.12% of the initial elements, the filtered subset evaluator technique obtained the highest efficiency gain, both on a per-patient basis (91.18% accuracy) and on a per-epoch basis (85.29 ± 21.62%) |
|
| |||||
| Nobukawa et al. [ | 2020 | AD | Functional connectivity | SVM | A novel interpretation of neural network functions in healthy brains and unhealthy disorders can be provided by applying a mixture of both machine learning approaches to neurophysiological evidence |
|
| |||||
| Kulkarni and Bairagi [ | 2017 | AD | Extracting salient features that are spectral-, wavelet-, and complexity-based | SVM | The increased performance in AD diagnosis |
|
| |||||
| Vecchio et al. [ | 2020 | AD | — | SVM | A low-cost and noninvasive process uses readily available tools that, when integrated, achieve high sensitivity/specificity and optimum individual classification accuracy (0.97 of AUC) |
Figure 1The block diagram of the TD-PSD feature extraction method for EEG signals.
Figure 2A conventional sublayer in CNN.
Figure 3The place of electrodes of EGG signals.
Figure 4Plots of sampling from EEG signals for three categories of MCI, AD, and HC.
Figure 5Time-frequency analysis of EEG signals for MCI patients.
Figure 6Time-frequency analysis of EEG signals for AD patients.
Figure 7Time-frequency analysis of EEG signals for HC samples.
Figure 8Conceptual diagram of the process used in this paper.
Figure 9Confusion matrix of classification methods: (a) KNN, (b) SVM, and (c) LDA.
Figure 10The architecture of the CNN layer for classification Alzheimer's disease.
Figure 11Accuracy and loss values for classification process of the presented CNN.
Figure 12Confusion matrix of the presented CNN method for classification of patients suffering from Alzheimer's.
Figure 13The ROC curve for the presented methods.
Comparison of the diagnosis methods used in this paper.
| Sensitivity | Precision | AUC | Accuracy | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCI | AD | HC | MCI | AD | HC | |||
| KNN | 79.7% | 71.9% | 62.5% | 63.7% | 75.4% | 78.4% | 0.902 | 71.4% |
| SVM | 9.4% | 32.8% | 81.3% | 31.6% | 47.7% | 40.3% | 0.593 | 41.1% |
| LDA | 28.1% | 53.1% | 50.0% | 45.0% | 43.0% | 48.8% | 0.594 | 43.8% |
| Presented CNN | 82.8% | 89.1% | 75.5% | 81.5% | 79.2% | 87.3% | 0.988 | 82.3% |