Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Integrative analysis of multi-dimensional imaging genomics data for Alzheimer's disease prediction

Authors
Zhang, ZimingHuang, HengShen, Dinggang
Issue Date
17-10월-2014
Publisher
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
Keywords
Alzheimer' s disease prediction; modality integration; imaging genomics data; feature selection; binary and multiclass classification
Citation
FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE, v.6
Indexed
SCIE
Journal Title
FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
Volume
6
URI
https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/97083
DOI
10.3389/fnagi.2014.00260
ISSN
1663-4365
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the effects of integrating multi-dimensional imaging genomics data for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prediction using machine learning approaches. Precisely, we compare our three recent proposed feature selection methods [i.e., multiple kernel learning (MKL), high-order graph matching based feature selection (HGM-FS), sparse multimodal learning (SMML)] using four widely-used modalities [i.e., magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and genetic modality single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)]. This study demonstrates the performance of each method using these modalities individually or integratively, and may be valuable to clinical tests in practice. Our experimental results suggest that for AD prediction, in general, (1) in terms of accuracy, PET is the best modality; (2) Even though the discriminant power of genetic SNP features is weak, adding this modality to other modalities does help improve the classification accuracy; (3) HGM-FS works best among the three feature selection methods; (4) Some of the selected features are shared by all the feature selection methods, which may have high correlation with the disease. Using all the modalities on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, the best accuracies, described as (mean +/- standard deviation)%, among the three methods are (76.2 +/- 11.3)% for AD vs. MCI, (94.8 +/- 7.3)% for AD vs. HC, (76.5 +/- 11.1)% for MCI vs. HC, and (71.0 +/- 8.4)% for AD vs. MCI vs. HC, respectively.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
Graduate School > Department of Artificial Intelligence > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE