4.4 Article

Computer aided diagnosis system for the Alzheimer's disease based on least squares and random forest SPECT image classification

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 472, 期 2, 页码 99-103

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.01.056

关键词

Alzheimer disease; SPECT; Random forest; Partial least squares

资金

  1. MICINN of Spain [PET2006-0253, TEC2008-02113, NAPOLEON (TEC2007-68030-C02-01), HD2008-0029]
  2. Consejeria de Innovacion, Ciencia y Empresa (Junta de Andalucia, Spain) [TIC-02566, TIC4530]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This letter shows a computer aided diagnosis (CAD) technique for the early detection of the Alzheimer's disease (AD) by means of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) image classification. The proposed method is based on partial least squares (PLS) regression model and a random forest (RF) predictor. The challenge of the curse of dimensionality is addressed by reducing the large dimensionality of the input data by downscaling the SPECT images and extracting score features using PLS. A RF predictor then forms an ensemble of classification and regression tree (CART)-like classifiers being its output determined by a majority vote of the trees in the forest. A baseline principal component analysis (PCA) system is also developed for reference. The experimental results show that the combined PLS-RF system yields a generalization error that converges to a limit when increasing the number of trees in the forest. Thus, the generalization error is reduced when using PLS and depends on the strength of the individual trees in the forest and the correlation between them. Moreover, PLS feature extraction is found to be more effective for extracting discriminative information from the data than PCA yielding peak sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values of 100%, 92.7%, and 96.9%, respectively. Moreover, the proposed CAD system outperformed several other recently developed AD CAD systems. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据