Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of automated dementia identification methods in the literature

From: Automated identification of dementia using medical imaging: a survey from a pattern classification perspective

Year Authors Targets Methods Imaging modality Data sets Performance
Accuracy Sensitivity Specificity
2008 Klöppel et al. [43] AD versus NC VBM (GM) + SVM MRI 34 AD versus 34 NC 95.6 97.0 94.1
2008 Xia et al. [81]. AD versus FTD versus NC GA + MKL FDG-PET 46 AD versus 43 FTD versus 40 NC 94.62 NaN NaN
2007 Vemuri et al. [37] AD versus NC VBM +APOE + SVM MR 190 AD versus 190 NC 89.3 86.0 92.0
2008 Magnin et al. [44] AD versus NC Histogram + SVM MRI 16 AD versus 22 NC 94.5 91.5 96.6
2007 Fan et al. [42] SC versus NC. VBM + nonlinear SVM MRI Female: 23 schizophrenia versus 38 NC 90.2 NaN NaN
Male: 46 schizophrenia versus 41 NC 90.8 NaN NaN
VBM + linear SVM MRI Female: 23 schizophrenia versus 38 NC 88.5 NaN NaN
Male: 46 schizophrenia versus 41 NC 88.5 NaN NaN
2009 Misra et al. [49] MCI-C versus MCI-NC VBM MRI ADNI 81.5 NaN NaN
2009 Querbes et al. [56] NC versus AD Thickness-Atlas MRI ADNI: 30 AD versus 30 NC 85.0 NaN NaN
2009 Desikan et al. [55] MCI versus NC Thickness-ROI MRI OASIS 91.0 73.0 94.0
ADNI 91.0 94.0 85.0
2009 Gerardin et al. [80] AD versus NC Hippocampi shape + SVM MRI 23 AD versus 23 MCI versus 25 NC 94.0 96.0 92.0
MCI versus NC Hippocampi shape + SVM MRI 23 AD versus 23 MCI versus 25 NC 83.0 83.0 84.0
2009 Horn et al. [90] AD versus FTD PLS + LDA SPECT 82 AD versus 91 FTD 84.0 83.0 86.0
KL-PLS SPECT 82 AD versus 91 FTD 84.0 80.0 87.0
PLS + k-NN SPECT 82 AD versus 91 FTD 88.0 93.0 85.0
SVM SPECT 82 AD versus 91 FTD 87.0 88.0 87.0
2013 Zhao et al. [53] Dementia versus NC KPCA + TR-LDA 289 demented versus 9611 NC 90.01 NaN NaN
2008 Huang et al. [105] AD versus NC VBM + ANN MRI 10 AD versus 12 NC 100 NaN NaN
2010 Plant et al. [93] AD versus NC Data mining + SVM MRI 32 AD versus 18 NC 90.0 96.88 77.78
MCI versus NC Data mining + Bayes MRI 24 MCI versus 18 NC 85.71 83.33 88.89
2011 Westman et al. [78] AD versus NC OPLS MRI 117 AD versus 122 MCI versus 112 NC NaN 90.0 94.0
AD versus MCI OPLS MRI 117 AD versus 122 MCI versus 112 NC NaN 75.0 79.0
MCI versus NC OPLS MRI 117 AD versus 122 MCI versus 112 NC NaN 66.0 73.0
2012 Hackmack et al. [100] MS versus NC Wavelet transform + SVM MRI 41 MS versus 26 NC 80.44 87.80 73.08
2013 Gray et al. [112] AD versus NC Random forest MRI, PET ADNI: 37 AD versus 35 NC 89.0 87.9 90.0
MCI versus NC Random forest MRI, PET ADNI: 75 MCI versus 35 NC 74.6 77.5 67.9
2013 Dukart et al. [101] AD versus NC Meta-analysis + SVM MRI, PET ADNI: 28 AD versus 28 NC 85.7 89.3 82.1
Leipzig: 21 AD versus 13 NC 100.0 100.0 100.0
2013 Ortiz et al. [102] AD versus NC LVQ + SVM MRI ADNI: 25 AD versus 25 NC 91.0 90.0 88.0
PCA + SVM MRI ADNI: 25 AD versus 25 NC 81.0 82.0 81.0
VAF + SVM MRI ADNI: 25 AD versus 25 NC 71.0 76.0 66.0
2014 Nir et al. [103] AD versus NC Diffusion weighted method + SVM MRI ADNI: 37 AD versus 113 MCI versus 50 NC 86.2 88.0 89.2
MCI versus NC 82.0 80.0 84.6
2015 Papakostas et al. [51] AD versus NC VBM + LC-kNN (k = 3) MRI OASIS: 49 mild AD versus 49 NC 80.0 80.0 79.0
VBM + PNN MRI OASIS: 49 mild AD versus 49 NC 78.0 62.0 94.0
DBM + LC-kNN (k = 3) MRI OASIS: 49 mild AD versus 49 NC 82.0 86.0 78.0
DBM + Linear SVM MRI OASIS: 49 mild AD versus 49 NC 79.0 90.0 67.0
2015 Schmitter et al. [99] AD versus NC FreeSurfer + SVM MRI ADNI NaN 82.0 88.0
MorphoBox + SVM MRI ADNI NaN 86.0 91.0
MCI versus NC FreeSurfer + SVM MRI ADNI NaN 66.0 80.0
MorphoBox + SVM MRI ADNI NaN 69.0 83.0
2013 Liu et al. [92] AD versus NC Multifold Bayesian Kernelization MRI, PET ADNI: 85 AD versus 169 MCI versus 77 NC 84.74 NaN NaN
MCIc versus MCInc MRI, PET 63.79 NaN NaN
2009 Lopez et al. [94] AD versus NC PCA + Bayesian classifier SPECT 38 AD versus 41 NC 88.6 NaN NaN
PET 42 AD versus 18 NC 98.3 NaN NaN