↓ Skip to main content

Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a machine learning approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a machine learning approach
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Salvatore, Antonio Cerasa, Petronilla Battista, Maria C. Gilardi, Aldo Quattrone, Isabella Castiglioni, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract

Determination of sensitive and specific markers of very early AD progression is intended to aid researchers and clinicians to develop new treatments and monitor their effectiveness, as well as to lessen the time and cost of clinical trials. Magnetic Resonance (MR)-related biomarkers have been recently identified by the use of machine learning methods for the in vivo differential diagnosis of AD. However, the vast majority of neuroimaging papers investigating this topic are focused on the difference between AD and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), not considering the impact of MCI patients who will (MCIc) or not convert (MCInc) to AD. Morphological T1-weighted MRIs of 137 AD, 76 MCIc, 134 MCInc, and 162 healthy controls (CN) selected from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) cohort, were used by an optimized machine learning algorithm. Voxels influencing the classification between these AD-related pre-clinical phases involved hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, basal ganglia, gyrus rectus, precuneus, and cerebellum, all critical regions known to be strongly involved in the pathophysiological mechanisms of AD. Classification accuracy was 76% AD vs. CN, 72% MCIc vs. CN, 66% MCIc vs. MCInc (nested 20-fold cross validation). Our data encourage the application of computer-based diagnosis in clinical practice of AD opening new prospective in the early management of AD patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 232 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 16%
Researcher 37 16%
Student > Master 34 14%
Other 12 5%
Student > Bachelor 12 5%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 72 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 33 14%
Engineering 33 14%
Neuroscience 20 8%
Psychology 17 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 7%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 83 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,343,255
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,532
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,828
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#19
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.