This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Computer applications, Neuroradiology brain, MR, Computer Applications-Detection, diagnosis, Comparative studies, CAD, Dementia
Authors:
E. Bron1, M. Smits1, F. Barkhof2, A. J. Bastos-Leite3, J. C. van Swieten1, W. J. Niessen1, S. Klein1; 1Rotterdam/NL, 2Amsterdam/NL, 3Porto/PT
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/B-0244
Results
As shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5,
the algorithms used a wide range of approaches.
Different feature extraction methods and classifiers were used.
Most of the algorithms were trained on the 30 provided training sets and on data from ADNI and AIBL.
Fig. 4: Overview of the types of features used by the 29 evaluated algorithms.
Fig. 5: Overview of the types of classifiers used by the 29 evaluated algorithms.
The performances for the five best performing methods are shown in Fig. 6 (accuracy) and Fig. 7 (AUC).
Results for the other methods can be found on http://caddementia.grand-challenge.org.
Fig. 6: This table presents the classification accuracy of the 5 best-ranked algorithms. TPF = true positive fraction. As three-class classification of AD, MCI and controls is evaluated, the accuracy for random guessing would be ~33%. The full results table is published on http://caddementia.grand-challenge.org
Fig. 7: This table presents the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of the 5 best-ranked algorithms. The full results table is published on http://caddementia.grand-challenge.org
The best performing algorithm (Sørensen et al.,
2014) yielded an AUC of 78.8% (CI: 75.6-82.0%) and an accuracy of 63.0% (CI: 57.9-67.5%),
which was significantly better than 24 other algorithms.
In general,
the best performances were achieved using a combination of features that included volume,
cortical thickness,
shape and intensity.