| Literature DB >> 35453981 |
Pierpaolo Alongi1,2, Riccardo Laudicella2,3,4,5, Francesco Panasiti4, Alessandro Stefano6, Albert Comelli5, Paolo Giaccone5,7, Annachiara Arnone8, Fabio Minutoli4, Natale Quartuccio1, Chiara Cupidi9, Gaspare Arnone1, Tommaso Piccoli10, Luigi Maria Edoardo Grimaldi9, Sergio Baldari4, Giorgio Russo6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early in-vivo diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial for accurate management of patients, in particular, to select subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) that may evolve into AD, and to define other types of MCI non-AD patients. The application of artificial intelligence to functional brain [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography(CT) aiming to increase diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of AD is still undetermined. In this field, we propose a radiomics analysis on advanced imaging segmentation method Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM)-based completed with a Machine-Learning (ML) application to predict the diagnosis of AD, also by comparing the results with following Amyloid-PET and final clinical diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; PET/CT; machine learning; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35453981 PMCID: PMC9030037 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Regions of interest (ROI) extracted from the cerebral segmentation using SPM.
| ROI 1 | Areas | Label Index | ROI 2 | Areas | Label Index | ROI 3 | Areas | Label Index | ROI 4 | Areas | Label Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right Hippocampus | 47 | Right (AOrG anterior orbital gyrus | 104 | Right FuG fusiform gyrus | 122 | Right PO parietal operculum | 174 | ||||
| Right PHG parahippocampal gyrus | 170 | Right MOrG medial orbital gyrus | 146 | Right GRe gyrus rectus | 124 | Right PoG postcentral gyrus | 176 | ||||
| Right Ent entorhinal area | 116 | Right OpIFGopercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus | 162 | Right ITG inferior temporal gyrus | 132 | Right SPL superior parietal lobule | 198 | ||||
| Right MTG middle temporal gyrus | 154 | Right OrIFG orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus | 164 | Right TMP temporal pole | 202 | Right PCgG posterior cingulate gyrus | 166 | ||||
| Left Hippocampus | 48 | Right MFC medial frontal cortex | 140 | Left FuG fusiform gyrus | 123 | Right PCuprecuneus | 168 | ||||
| Left PHG parahippocampal gyrus | 171 | Right MFG middle frontal gyrus | 142 | Left GRe gyrus rectus | 125 | Left PoG postcentral gyrus | 177 | ||||
| Left Ent entorhinal area | 117 | Left MOrG medial orbital gyrus | 147 | Left ITG inferior temporal gyrus | 133 | Left PO parietal operculum | 175 | ||||
| Left MTG middle temporal gyrus | 155 | Left AOrG anterior orbital gyrus | 105 | Left TMP temporal pole | 203 | Left SPL superior parietal lobule | 199 | ||||
| Left OpIFGopercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus | 163 | Left PCuprecuneus | 169 | ||||||||
| Left OrIFG orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus | 165 | Left PCgG posterior cingulate gyrus | 167 | ||||||||
| Left MFC medial frontal cortex | 141 | ||||||||||
| Left MFG middle frontal gyrus | 143 |
Figure 1The proposed radiomics workflow, from SPM-based image pre-processing to Pyradiomics -based feature extraction process to machine learning-based classification.
Patients’ main characteristics.
| pt N° | Sex | Age | Schooling | MMSE | CDR | MRI | FDG PET | Amy-PET | Final Diagnosis (MDT) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | 64 | 21 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | M | 81 | 5 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | F | 59 | 8 | 23 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | M | 63 | 18 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | F | 79 | 5 | 20 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | F | 80 | 5 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | F | 75 | 5 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | F | 72 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | F | 77 | 5 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | F | 71 | 13 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | F | 75 | 5 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | F | 83 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | M | 58 | 18 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | F | 61 | 13 | 22 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | M | 66 | 13 | 21 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | F | 75 | 8 | 26 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | F | 53 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | M | 66 | 8 | 28 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | M | 72 | 18 | 24 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | M | 79 | 13 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | M | 69 | 13 | 28 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | F | 73 | 13 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 23 | M | 76 | 8 | 28 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | M | 74 | 5 | 29 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | M | 61 | 18 | 22 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 26 | F | 70 | 8 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | F | 68 | 13 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 28 | M | 65 | 8 | 25 | 0,5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 29 | M | 80 | 8 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | F | 71 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 31 | M | 78 | 8 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | F | 74 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 33 | M | 80 | 0 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M | 78 | 5 | 22 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | M | 71 | 0 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | M | 58 | 8 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 37 | F | 63 | 18 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 38 | F | 74 | 5 | 28 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 39 | M | 77 | 5 | 30 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | M | 65 | 8 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 41 | M | 62 | 17 | 21,46 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 42 | F | 77 | 5 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 43 | F | 66 | 8 | 26 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Legend: N° = number; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; CDR = Clinical dementia rating; MRI = Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Performances of FDG-PET derived features in the prediction of Amyloid-PET positivity.
| Features Selected for Each ROI | Sensitivity [%] | Specificity [%] | Precision [%] | Accuracy [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 84.92 | 75.13 | 73.75 | 79.56 | <0.05 |
|
| |||||
|
| 88.67 | 46.81 | 59.47 | 65.57 | <0.05 |
|
| |||||
|
| 93.83 | 61.80 | 67.51 | 76.15 | <0.05 |
|
| |||||
|
| 86.33 | 64.93 | 66.88 | 74.58 | <0.05 |
Figure 2AUROC Curves of FDG-PET derived features in the prediction of Amyloid-PET positivity.
Performances of FDG-PET derived features in the prediction of AD.
| Features Selected for Each ROI | Sensitivity [%] | Specificity [%] | Precision [%] | Accuracy [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 66.39 | 57.51 | 58.46 | 61.51 | 0.004 |
|
| |||||
|
| 75.16 | 80.50 | 77.68 | 78.05 | 0.002 |
|
| |||||
|
| 80.88 | 76.85 | 75.63 | 78.76 | <0.05 |
|
| |||||
|
| 75.50 | 55.25 | 59.53 | 64.96 | 0.004 |
Figure 3AUROC Curves of FDG-PET derived features in the prediction of AD.