Accuracy of MRI Classification Algorithms in a Tertiary Memory Center Clinical Routine Cohort.
Aged
Algorithms
Alzheimer Disease
/ diagnosis
Brain
/ diagnostic imaging
Cognition Disorders
/ diagnosis
Dementia
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ classification
Male
Middle Aged
Neuroimaging
/ classification
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Software
Support Vector Machine
All cognitive disorders/dementia
Alzheimer’s disease
assessment of cognitive disorders/dementia
magnetic resonance imaging
volumetric
MRI
Journal
Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD
ISSN: 1875-8908
Titre abrégé: J Alzheimers Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9814863
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
pubmed:
8
3
2020
medline:
8
5
2021
entrez:
8
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Automated volumetry software (AVS) has recently become widely available to neuroradiologists. MRI volumetry with AVS may support the diagnosis of dementias by identifying regional atrophy. Moreover, automatic classifiers using machine learning techniques have recently emerged as promising approaches to assist diagnosis. However, the performance of both AVS and automatic classifiers have been evaluated mostly in the artificial setting of research datasets. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of two AVS and an automatic classifier in the clinical routine condition of a memory clinic. We studied 239 patients with cognitive troubles from a single memory center cohort. Using clinical routine T1-weighted MRI, we evaluated the classification performance of: 1) univariate volumetry using two AVS (volBrain and Neuroreader™); 2) Support Vector Machine (SVM) automatic classifier, using either the AVS volumes (SVM-AVS), or whole gray matter (SVM-WGM); 3) reading by two neuroradiologists. The performance measure was the balanced diagnostic accuracy. The reference standard was consensus diagnosis by three neurologists using clinical, biological (cerebrospinal fluid) and imaging data and following international criteria. Univariate AVS volumetry provided only moderate accuracies (46% to 71% with hippocampal volume). The accuracy improved when using SVM-AVS classifier (52% to 85%), becoming close to that of SVM-WGM (52 to 90%). Visual classification by neuroradiologists ranged between SVM-AVS and SVM-WGM. In the routine practice of a memory clinic, the use of volumetric measures provided by AVS yields only moderate accuracy. Automatic classifiers can improve accuracy and could be a useful tool to assist diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Automated volumetry software (AVS) has recently become widely available to neuroradiologists. MRI volumetry with AVS may support the diagnosis of dementias by identifying regional atrophy. Moreover, automatic classifiers using machine learning techniques have recently emerged as promising approaches to assist diagnosis. However, the performance of both AVS and automatic classifiers have been evaluated mostly in the artificial setting of research datasets.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to evaluate the performance of two AVS and an automatic classifier in the clinical routine condition of a memory clinic.
METHODS
We studied 239 patients with cognitive troubles from a single memory center cohort. Using clinical routine T1-weighted MRI, we evaluated the classification performance of: 1) univariate volumetry using two AVS (volBrain and Neuroreader™); 2) Support Vector Machine (SVM) automatic classifier, using either the AVS volumes (SVM-AVS), or whole gray matter (SVM-WGM); 3) reading by two neuroradiologists. The performance measure was the balanced diagnostic accuracy. The reference standard was consensus diagnosis by three neurologists using clinical, biological (cerebrospinal fluid) and imaging data and following international criteria.
RESULTS
Univariate AVS volumetry provided only moderate accuracies (46% to 71% with hippocampal volume). The accuracy improved when using SVM-AVS classifier (52% to 85%), becoming close to that of SVM-WGM (52 to 90%). Visual classification by neuroradiologists ranged between SVM-AVS and SVM-WGM.
CONCLUSION
In the routine practice of a memory clinic, the use of volumetric measures provided by AVS yields only moderate accuracy. Automatic classifiers can improve accuracy and could be a useful tool to assist diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32144978
pii: JAD190594
doi: 10.3233/JAD-190594
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM