4.7 Article

Iterative sparse and deep learning for accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

期刊

PATTERN RECOGNITION
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2021.107944

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Mild cognitive impairment; Deep learning; Sparse regression

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61771397]
  2. Science and Technology Innovation Committee of Shenzhen Municipality, China [JCYJ20180306171334997]
  3. CAAIHuawei MindSpore Open Fund
  4. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  5. DOD ADNI (Department of Defense) [W81XWH-12-2-0012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces an iterative sparse and deep learning (ISDL) model for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment by extracting deep features and identifying critical cortical regions, offering a state-of-the-art solution.
Deep learning techniques have been increasingly applied to the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD. Despite their prevalence, existing methods usually suffer from using either irrelevant brain regions or less-accurate landmarks. In this paper, we propose the iterative sparse and deep learning (ISDL) model for joint deep feature extraction and critical cortical region identification to diagnose AD and MCI. We first design a deep feature extraction (DFE) module to capture the local-to-global structural information derived from 62 cortical regions. Then we design a sparse regression module to identify the critical cortical regions and integrate it into the DFE module to exclude irrelevant cortical regions from the diagnosis process. The parameters of the two modules are updated alternatively and iteratively in an end-to-end manner. Our experimental results suggest the ISDL model provides a state-of-the-art solution to both AD-CN classification and MCI-to-AD prediction. (C) 2021 Elsevier 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

4.7
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