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