Machine learning based hierarchical classification of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
Classification model
Frontotemporal dementia
Machine learning
Journal
NeuroImage. Clinical
ISSN: 2213-1582
Titre abrégé: Neuroimage Clin
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101597070
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
09
12
2018
revised:
30
03
2019
accepted:
01
04
2019
pubmed:
14
4
2019
medline:
3
4
2020
entrez:
14
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In a clinical setting, an individual subject classification model rather than a group analysis would be more informative. Specifically, the subtlety of cortical atrophy in some frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients and overlapping patterns of atrophy among three FTD clinical syndromes including behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA), and semantic variant PPA (svPPA) give rise to the need for classification models at the individual level. In this study, we aimed to classify each individual subject into one of the diagnostic categories in a hierarchical manner by employing a machine learning-based classification method. We recruited 143 patients with FTD, 50 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and 146 cognitively normal subjects. All subjects underwent a three-dimensional volumetric brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and cortical thickness was measured using FreeSurfer. We applied the Laplace Beltrami operator to reduce noise in the cortical thickness data and to reduce the dimension of the feature vector. Classifiers were constructed by applying both principal component analysis and linear discriminant analysis to the cortical thickness data. For the hierarchical classification, we trained four classifiers using different pairs of groups: Step 1 - CN vs. FTD + AD, Step 2 - FTD vs. AD, Step 3 - bvFTD vs. PPA, Step 4 - svPPA vs. nfvPPA. To evaluate the classification performance for each step, we used a10-fold cross-validation approach, performed 1000 times for reliability. The classification accuracy of the entire hierarchical classification tree was 75.8%, which was higher than that of the non-hierarchical classifier (73.0%). The classification accuracies of steps 1-4 were 86.1%, 90.8%, 86.9%, and 92.1%, respectively. Changes in the right frontotemporal area were critical for discriminating behavioral variant FTD from PPA. The left frontal lobe discriminated nfvPPA from svPPA, while the bilateral anterior temporal regions were critical for identifying svPPA. In the present study, our automated classifier successfully classified FTD clinical subtypes with good to excellent accuracy. Our classifier may help clinicians diagnose FTD subtypes with subtle cortical atrophy and facilitate appropriate specific interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In a clinical setting, an individual subject classification model rather than a group analysis would be more informative. Specifically, the subtlety of cortical atrophy in some frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients and overlapping patterns of atrophy among three FTD clinical syndromes including behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA), and semantic variant PPA (svPPA) give rise to the need for classification models at the individual level. In this study, we aimed to classify each individual subject into one of the diagnostic categories in a hierarchical manner by employing a machine learning-based classification method.
METHODS
We recruited 143 patients with FTD, 50 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and 146 cognitively normal subjects. All subjects underwent a three-dimensional volumetric brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and cortical thickness was measured using FreeSurfer. We applied the Laplace Beltrami operator to reduce noise in the cortical thickness data and to reduce the dimension of the feature vector. Classifiers were constructed by applying both principal component analysis and linear discriminant analysis to the cortical thickness data. For the hierarchical classification, we trained four classifiers using different pairs of groups: Step 1 - CN vs. FTD + AD, Step 2 - FTD vs. AD, Step 3 - bvFTD vs. PPA, Step 4 - svPPA vs. nfvPPA. To evaluate the classification performance for each step, we used a10-fold cross-validation approach, performed 1000 times for reliability.
RESULTS
The classification accuracy of the entire hierarchical classification tree was 75.8%, which was higher than that of the non-hierarchical classifier (73.0%). The classification accuracies of steps 1-4 were 86.1%, 90.8%, 86.9%, and 92.1%, respectively. Changes in the right frontotemporal area were critical for discriminating behavioral variant FTD from PPA. The left frontal lobe discriminated nfvPPA from svPPA, while the bilateral anterior temporal regions were critical for identifying svPPA.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, our automated classifier successfully classified FTD clinical subtypes with good to excellent accuracy. Our classifier may help clinicians diagnose FTD subtypes with subtle cortical atrophy and facilitate appropriate specific interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30981204
pii: S2213-1582(19)30161-5
doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101811
pmc: PMC6458431
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101811Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K01 AG055698
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Arch Neurol. 2008 Feb;65(2):249-55
pubmed: 18268196
Radiology. 2016 Jun;279(3):838-48
pubmed: 26653846
Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Dec;34(12):3411-25
pubmed: 22927119
Front Neurol. 2014 May 12;5:71
pubmed: 24860545
Eur Radiol. 2017 Aug;27(8):3372-3382
pubmed: 27986990
Brain Topogr. 2013 Jan;26(1):9-23
pubmed: 22890700
Neurology. 2009 May 12;72(19):1653-60
pubmed: 19433738
Neurology. 2006 Nov 28;67(10):1849-51
pubmed: 16931509
Brain. 2008 Mar;131(Pt 3):681-9
pubmed: 18202106
Lancet Neurol. 2011 May;10(5):424-35
pubmed: 21481640
Neurology. 2002 Jan 22;58(2):198-208
pubmed: 11805245
Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2013 Jun 14;9:88-95
pubmed: 23878613
Alzheimers Dement. 2011 May;7(3):263-9
pubmed: 21514250
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 7;8(1):4161
pubmed: 29515131
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006 Oct;25(10):1296-306
pubmed: 17024833
Neuroimage. 2008 Jul 15;41(4):1220-7
pubmed: 18474436
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jan;35(1):100-6
pubmed: 17846768
Brain. 2011 Sep;134(Pt 9):2456-77
pubmed: 21810890
Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 1;59(3):2217-30
pubmed: 22008371
Radiology. 2015 Jul;276(1):219-27
pubmed: 25734554
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 May;82(5):476-86
pubmed: 20971753
Neuroimage. 2009 Oct 1;47(4):1558-67
pubmed: 19501654
Lancet. 2015 Oct 24;386(10004):1672-82
pubmed: 26595641
Neurology. 2011 Mar 15;76(11):1006-14
pubmed: 21325651
Neuroradiology. 2009 Aug;51(8):491-503
pubmed: 19308367
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Nov;6(11):1004-14
pubmed: 17945154
Neuroimage. 2014 Feb 15;87:96-110
pubmed: 24239590
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Feb 06;14:334-343
pubmed: 28229040
J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47(4):939-54
pubmed: 26401773
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;62(4):1827-1839
pubmed: 29614652
Brain. 2008 Nov;131(Pt 11):2969-74
pubmed: 18835868
Neuroimage Clin. 2015 Jan 22;8:345-55
pubmed: 26106560
Neurology. 2001 Jul 24;57(2):216-25
pubmed: 11468305