Predicting the progression of mild cognitive impairment using machine learning: A systematic, quantitative and critical review.
Clicks: 251
ID: 204872
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
251 views
31 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #11 of 12 articles by views in Medical image analysis
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. This review included 172 articles, from which 234 experiments were extracted. For each of them, we reported the used data set, the feature types, the algorithm type, performance and potential methodological issues. The impact of these characteristics on the performance was evaluated using a multivariate mixed effect linear regressions. We found that using cognitive, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography or potentially electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography variables significantly improved predictive performance compared to not including them, whereas including other modalities, in particular T1 magnetic resonance imaging, did not show a significant effect. The good performance of cognitive assessments questions the wide use of imaging for predicting the progression to AD and advocates for exploring further fine domain-specific cognitive assessments. We also identified several methodological issues, including the absence of a test set, or its use for feature selection or parameter tuning in nearly a fourth of the papers. Other issues, found in 15% of the studies, cast doubts on the relevance of the method to clinical practice. We also highlight that short-term predictions are likely not to be better than predicting that subjects stay stable over time. These issues highlight the importance of adhering to good practices for the use of machine learning as a decision support system for the clinical practice.
| Reference Key |
ansart2020predictingmedical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ansart, Manon;Epelbaum, Stéphane;Bassignana, Giulia;Bône, Alexandre;Bottani, Simona;Cattai, Tiziana;Couronné, Raphaël;Faouzi, Johann;Koval, Igor;Louis, Maxime;Thibeau-Sutre, Elina;Wen, Junhao;Wild, Adam;Burgos, Ninon;Dormont, Didier;Colliot, Olivier;Durrleman, Stanley; |
| Journal | Medical image analysis |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
S1361-8415(20)30212-7
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.