Cargando…

Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients

Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Vos, Frank, Schouten, Tijn M., Koini, Marisa, Bouts, Mark J.R.J., Feis, Rogier A., Lechner, Anita, Schmidt, Reinhold, van Buchem, Mark A., Verhey, Frans R.J., Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M., Scheltens, Philip, de Rooij, Mark, van der Grond, Jeroen, Rombouts, Serge A.R.B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7303669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32554321
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102303
_version_ 1783548108949422080
author de Vos, Frank
Schouten, Tijn M.
Koini, Marisa
Bouts, Mark J.R.J.
Feis, Rogier A.
Lechner, Anita
Schmidt, Reinhold
van Buchem, Mark A.
Verhey, Frans R.J.
Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M.
Scheltens, Philip
de Rooij, Mark
van der Grond, Jeroen
Rombouts, Serge A.R.B.
author_facet de Vos, Frank
Schouten, Tijn M.
Koini, Marisa
Bouts, Mark J.R.J.
Feis, Rogier A.
Lechner, Anita
Schmidt, Reinhold
van Buchem, Mark A.
Verhey, Frans R.J.
Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M.
Scheltens, Philip
de Rooij, Mark
van der Grond, Jeroen
Rombouts, Serge A.R.B.
author_sort de Vos, Frank
collection PubMed
description Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models can also discriminate AD in diverse clinical populations as found in memory clinics. To study this, we trained MRI-based AD classification models on a single centre data set consisting of AD patients (N = 76) and controls (N = 173), and used these models to assign AD scores to subjective memory complainers (N = 67), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (N = 61), and AD patients (N = 61) from a multi-centre memory clinic data set. The anatomical MRI scans were used to calculate grey matter density, subcortical volumes and cortical thickness, the diffusion MRI scans were used to calculate fractional anisotropy, mean, axial and radial diffusivity, and the rs-fMRI scans were used to calculate functional connectivity between resting state networks and amplitude of low frequency fluctuations. Within the multi-centre memory clinic data set we removed scan site differences prior to applying the models. For all models, on average, the AD patients were assigned the highest AD scores, followed by MCI patients, and later followed by SMC subjects. The anatomical MRI models performed best, and the best performing anatomical MRI measure was grey matter density, separating SMC subjects from MCI patients with an AUC of 0.69, MCI patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.70, and SMC patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.86. The diffusion MRI models did not generalise well to the memory clinic data, possibly because of large scan site differences. The functional connectivity model separated SMC subjects and MCI patients relatively good (AUC = 0.66). The multimodal MRI model did not improve upon the anatomical MRI model. In conclusion, we showed that the grey matter density model generalises best to memory clinic subjects. When also considering the fact that grey matter density generally performs well in AD classification studies, this feature is probably the best MRI-based feature for AD diagnosis in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7303669
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73036692020-06-22 Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients de Vos, Frank Schouten, Tijn M. Koini, Marisa Bouts, Mark J.R.J. Feis, Rogier A. Lechner, Anita Schmidt, Reinhold van Buchem, Mark A. Verhey, Frans R.J. Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M. Scheltens, Philip de Rooij, Mark van der Grond, Jeroen Rombouts, Serge A.R.B. Neuroimage Clin Regular Article Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models can also discriminate AD in diverse clinical populations as found in memory clinics. To study this, we trained MRI-based AD classification models on a single centre data set consisting of AD patients (N = 76) and controls (N = 173), and used these models to assign AD scores to subjective memory complainers (N = 67), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (N = 61), and AD patients (N = 61) from a multi-centre memory clinic data set. The anatomical MRI scans were used to calculate grey matter density, subcortical volumes and cortical thickness, the diffusion MRI scans were used to calculate fractional anisotropy, mean, axial and radial diffusivity, and the rs-fMRI scans were used to calculate functional connectivity between resting state networks and amplitude of low frequency fluctuations. Within the multi-centre memory clinic data set we removed scan site differences prior to applying the models. For all models, on average, the AD patients were assigned the highest AD scores, followed by MCI patients, and later followed by SMC subjects. The anatomical MRI models performed best, and the best performing anatomical MRI measure was grey matter density, separating SMC subjects from MCI patients with an AUC of 0.69, MCI patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.70, and SMC patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.86. The diffusion MRI models did not generalise well to the memory clinic data, possibly because of large scan site differences. The functional connectivity model separated SMC subjects and MCI patients relatively good (AUC = 0.66). The multimodal MRI model did not improve upon the anatomical MRI model. In conclusion, we showed that the grey matter density model generalises best to memory clinic subjects. When also considering the fact that grey matter density generally performs well in AD classification studies, this feature is probably the best MRI-based feature for AD diagnosis in clinical practice. Elsevier 2020-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7303669/ /pubmed/32554321 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102303 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Article
de Vos, Frank
Schouten, Tijn M.
Koini, Marisa
Bouts, Mark J.R.J.
Feis, Rogier A.
Lechner, Anita
Schmidt, Reinhold
van Buchem, Mark A.
Verhey, Frans R.J.
Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M.
Scheltens, Philip
de Rooij, Mark
van der Grond, Jeroen
Rombouts, Serge A.R.B.
Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title_full Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title_fullStr Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title_full_unstemmed Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title_short Pre-trained MRI-based Alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
title_sort pre-trained mri-based alzheimer's disease classification models to classify memory clinic patients
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7303669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32554321
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102303
work_keys_str_mv AT devosfrank pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT schoutentijnm pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT koinimarisa pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT boutsmarkjrj pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT feisrogiera pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT lechneranita pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT schmidtreinhold pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT vanbuchemmarka pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT verheyfransrj pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT olderikkertmarcelgm pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT scheltensphilip pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT derooijmark pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT vandergrondjeroen pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients
AT romboutssergearb pretrainedmribasedalzheimersdiseaseclassificationmodelstoclassifymemoryclinicpatients