4.7 Article

Multi-modal discriminative dictionary learning for Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.07.003

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI); Alzheimer's disease (AD); Multimodal neuroimaging data; Discriminative dictionary; Brain disorders

资金

  1. Funds for International Cooperation and Exchange of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [61210001]
  2. General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [61571047]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017EYT36]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective: The differentiation of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is the prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from normal control (NC) is important as the recent research emphasis on early pre-clinical stage for possible disease abnormality identification, intervention and even possible prevention. Methods: The current study puts forward a multi-modal supervised within-class-similarity discriminative dictionary learning algorithm (SCDDL) we introduced previously for distinguishing MCI from NC. The proposed new algorithm was based on weighted combination and named as multi-modality SCDDL (mSCDDL). Structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and florbetapir PET data of 113 AD patients, 110 MCI patients and 117 NC subjects from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative database were adopted for classification between MCI and NC, as well as between AD and NC. Results: Adopting mSCDDL, the classification accuracy achieved 98.5% for AD vs. NC and 82.8% for MCI vs. NC, which were superior to or comparable with the results of some other state-of-the-art approaches as reported in recent multi-modality publications. Conclusions: The mSCDDL procedure was a promising tool in assisting early diseases diagnosis using neuroimaging data. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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