| Literature DB >> 34007305 |
Morteza Amini1, MirMohsen Pedram2,3, AliReza Moradi4,5, Mahshad Ouchani6.
Abstract
The automatic diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease plays an important role in human health, especially in its early stage. Because it is a neurodegenerative condition, Alzheimer's disease seems to have a long incubation period. Therefore, it is essential to analyze Alzheimer's symptoms at different stages. In this paper, the classification is done with several methods of machine learning consisting of K-nearest neighbor (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), linear discrimination analysis (LDA), and random forest (RF). Moreover, novel convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture is presented to diagnose Alzheimer's severity. The relationship between Alzheimer's patients' functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) images and their scores on the MMSE is investigated to achieve the aim. The feature extraction is performed based on the robust multitask feature learning algorithm. The severity is also calculated based on the Mini-Mental State Examination score, including low, mild, moderate, and severe categories. Results show that the accuracy of the KNN, SVM, DT, LDA, RF, and presented CNN method is 77.5%, 85.8%, 91.7%, 79.5%, 85.1%, and 96.7%, respectively. Moreover, for the presented CNN architecture, the sensitivity of low, mild, moderate, and severe status of Alzheimer patients is 98.1%, 95.2%,89.0%, and 87.5%, respectively. Based on the findings, the presented CNN architecture classifier outperforms other methods and can diagnose the severity and stages of Alzheimer's disease with maximum accuracy.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34007305 PMCID: PMC8100410 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5514839
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Summary research on Alzheimer's disease diagnosis methods.
| Author | Year | Database | Modality | Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suk and Shen [ | 2013 | Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) | PET, MRI, CSF | Stacked autoencoder, SVM | 95.9 |
| Suk al.[ | 2014 | ADNI | PET, MRI | Deep Boltzmann machine | 95.4 |
| Liu et al. [ | 2016 | ADNI | MRI | Influence of subclass number, multiview feature extraction, subclass clustering-based feature selection, SVM | 93.8 |
| Zu et al. [ | 2016 | ADNI | PET, MRI | Label-aligned multi-task feature selection, support vector machine | 96.0 |
| Sarraf and Tofighi [ | 2016 | ADNI | fMRI | LeNet-5 | 96.85 |
| Sarraf and Tofighi [ | 2016 | ADNI | MRI, fMRI | LeNet, GoogleNet | 98.84 |
| Li et al. [ | 2017 | ADNI | MRI | CNN | 88.31 |
| Amoroso et al. [ | 2018 | ADNI | MRI | Random Forest, deep neural network, fuzzy logic | 38.8 |
| Liu et al. [ | 2018 | ADNI | MRI, PET | 2D and 3D CNN, | 93.26 |
| Yang et al. [ | 2018 | ADNI | MRI | The convolutional neural network, 3DVGGNET, 3DRESNET | 76.6 |
| Wang et al. [ | 2018 | Open Access Series of Imaging Studies | MRI | CNN | 97.65 |
| Khvostikov et al. [ | 2018 | ADNI | MRI, DTI | CNN | 96.7 |
| Shi et al. [ | 2018 | ADNI | MRI, PET | Multimodal stacked deep polynomial network, SVM | 97.13 |
| Ramzan et al. [ | 2019 | ADNI | fMRI | Off-the-shelf and fine-tuned | 97.88 |
| Parmar et al. [ | 2020 | ADNI | fMRI | 3D CNN | 96.55 |
| Duc et al. [ | 2020 | ADNI | fMRI | 3D CNN and SVM-RFE | 85.27 |
| Li et al. [ | 2020 | ADNI | 4D fMRI | 3D CNN and C3d-LSTM | 89.47 |
| Al-Khuzaie et al. [ | 2021 | Alzheimer Network (AlzNet) | 2D fMRI | CNN | 99.30 |
| Bhaskaran and Anandan [ | 2021 | Research Anthology on Diagnosing and Treating Neurocognitive Disorders | rsfMRI | Graph metrics and lateralization | 97.54 |
| Luo et al. [ | 2021 | Population-specific Chinese brain atlas | rsfMRI | Graph metrics and false discovery rate (FDR) | 95.67 |
| Ahmadi et al. [ | 2021 | Harvard Medical School | MRI | Robust PCA and CNN method | 96 |
Figure 1The conceptual flowchart of the presented process.
Figure 2Results of noise reduction using QMFT: (a) input image; (b) input image contour form; (c) noise-reduced image; (d) contour form of noise-reduced image.
Figure 3The PSNR value of noise reduction from fMRI images.
Scoring system of MMSE and the severity of Alzheimer's disease.
| Score | Severity | Psychometric analysis | Day-to-day functioning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25-30 | Low | If there are clinical symptoms of cognitive disability, a formal cognition test can be useful | Clinically significant, however mild, deficits may be available. Only the most stressful everyday life tasks are expected to be affected |
| 20-25 | Mild | To further assess the trend and nature of deficits, a systematic examination can be useful | Meaningful effects. Any monitoring, assistance, and aid may be needed |
| 10-20 | Moderate | The formal assessment of whether there are clear health indications may be helpful | Obvious deficiency. 24-hour surveillance could be required |
| 0-10 | Severe | The patient will not be testable | Impairment labelled. 24-hour surveillance and support with ADL are likely to be required |
Figure 4The cumulative summation of sorted eigenvalues.
Figure 5Confusion matrix of machine learning methods.
Figure 6ROC curves of machine learning methods.
The architecture of the presented CNN method.
| Layer | Type | Properties |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Feature input | 167 × 1 × 1 images |
| 2 | Convolution | 16 (5 × 5) convolutions with stride [ |
| 3 | ReLU |
|
| 4 | Fully connected | 384 fully connected layer |
| 5 | Fully connected | 384 fully connected layer |
| 6 | Fully connected | Four fully connected layer |
| 7 | SoftMax |
|
| 8 | Classification output | For multiclass grouping problems with mutually exclusive groups, the crossentropy loss |
Figure 7The accuracy and the loss value for the presented CNN architecture.
Figure 8The confusion matrix of the presented CNN method.
Comparison of the diagnosis methods used in this paper.
| Class | KNN | SVM | DT | LDA | RF | Presented CNN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Low | 94.6% | 95.1% | 94.9% | 91.0% | 99.9% | 98.1% |
| Mild | 51.1% | 57.6% | 94.3% | 50.2% | 54.6% | 95.2% | |
| Moderate | 6.8% | 84.9% | 61.6% | 61.6% | 47.9% | 89.0% | |
| Severe | 0.0% | 100% | 12.5% | 87.5% | 25.0% | 87.5% | |
|
| |||||||
| Precision | Low | 79.0% | 86.5% | 96.9% | 83.4% | 82.5% | 98.1% |
| Mild | 70.1% | 80.0% | 80.6% | 70.6% | 97.7% | 92.4% | |
| Moderate | 83.3% | 89.9% | 83.3% | 61.6% | 100% | 97.0% | |
| Severe | 0% | 100% | 50.0% | 63.6% | 100% | 100% | |
|
| |||||||
| Accuracy | 77.5% | 85.8% | 91.7% | 79.5% | 85.1% | 96.7% | |