Comparing machine learning classifier models in discriminating cognitively unimpaired older adults from three clinical cohorts in the Alzheimer's disease spectrum: demonstration analyses in the COMPASS-ND study.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-03-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fnagi.2025.1542514
Harrison Fah, Linzy Bohn, Russell Greiner, Roger A Dixon
{"title":"Comparing machine learning classifier models in discriminating cognitively unimpaired older adults from three clinical cohorts in the Alzheimer's disease spectrum: demonstration analyses in the COMPASS-ND study.","authors":"Harrison Fah, Linzy Bohn, Russell Greiner, Roger A Dixon","doi":"10.3389/fnagi.2025.1542514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research in aging, impairment, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) often requires powerful computational models for discriminating between clinical cohorts and identifying early biomarkers and key risk or protective factors. Machine Learning (ML) approaches represent a diverse set of data-driven tools for performing such tasks in big or complex datasets. We present systematic demonstration analyses to compare seven frequently used ML classifier models and two eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques on multiple performance metrics for a common neurodegenerative disease dataset. The aim is to identify and characterize the best performing ML and XAI algorithms for the present data.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We accessed a Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging dataset featuring four well-characterized cohorts: Cognitively Unimpaired (CU), Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and AD (<i>N</i> = 255). All participants contributed 102 multi-modal biomarkers and risk factors. Seven ML algorithms were compared along six performance metrics in discriminating between cohorts. Two XAI algorithms were compared using five performance and five similarity metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although all ML models performed relatively well in the extreme-cohort comparison (CU/AD), the Super Learner (SL), Random Forest (RF) and Gradient-Boosted trees (GB) algorithms excelled in the challenging near-cohort comparisons (CU/SCI). For the XAI interpretation comparison, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) generally outperformed Local Interpretable Model agnostic Explanation (LIME) in key performance properties.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ML results indicate that two tree-based methods (RF and GB) are reliable and effective as initial models for classification tasks involving discrete clinical aging and neurodegeneration data. In the XAI phase, SHAP performed better than LIME due to lower computational time (when applied to RF and GB) and incorporation of feature interactions, leading to more reliable results.</p>","PeriodicalId":12450,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience","volume":"17 ","pages":"1542514"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1542514","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research in aging, impairment, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) often requires powerful computational models for discriminating between clinical cohorts and identifying early biomarkers and key risk or protective factors. Machine Learning (ML) approaches represent a diverse set of data-driven tools for performing such tasks in big or complex datasets. We present systematic demonstration analyses to compare seven frequently used ML classifier models and two eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques on multiple performance metrics for a common neurodegenerative disease dataset. The aim is to identify and characterize the best performing ML and XAI algorithms for the present data.

Method: We accessed a Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging dataset featuring four well-characterized cohorts: Cognitively Unimpaired (CU), Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and AD (N = 255). All participants contributed 102 multi-modal biomarkers and risk factors. Seven ML algorithms were compared along six performance metrics in discriminating between cohorts. Two XAI algorithms were compared using five performance and five similarity metrics.

Results: Although all ML models performed relatively well in the extreme-cohort comparison (CU/AD), the Super Learner (SL), Random Forest (RF) and Gradient-Boosted trees (GB) algorithms excelled in the challenging near-cohort comparisons (CU/SCI). For the XAI interpretation comparison, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) generally outperformed Local Interpretable Model agnostic Explanation (LIME) in key performance properties.

Conclusion: The ML results indicate that two tree-based methods (RF and GB) are reliable and effective as initial models for classification tasks involving discrete clinical aging and neurodegeneration data. In the XAI phase, SHAP performed better than LIME due to lower computational time (when applied to RF and GB) and incorporation of feature interactions, leading to more reliable results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较机器学习分类器模型在阿尔茨海默病谱系中从三个临床队列中区分认知功能未受损的老年人:COMPASS-ND研究中的示范分析
背景:衰老、损伤和阿尔茨海默病(AD)的研究通常需要强大的计算模型来区分临床队列,识别早期生物标志物和关键风险或保护因素。机器学习(ML)方法代表了一组不同的数据驱动工具,用于在大型或复杂的数据集中执行此类任务。我们对一个常见神经退行性疾病数据集的多个性能指标进行了系统的演示分析,比较了七种常用的ML分类器模型和两种可解释人工智能(XAI)技术。目的是识别和描述当前数据中表现最好的ML和XAI算法。方法:我们访问了加拿大老龄化神经变性联盟数据集,该数据集具有四个特征良好的队列:认知未受损(CU),主观认知障碍(SCI),轻度认知障碍(MCI)和AD (N = 255)。所有参与者贡献了102种多模式生物标志物和危险因素。在区分队列时,沿着六个性能指标比较了七种ML算法。两种XAI算法使用五种性能和五种相似性指标进行比较。结果:尽管所有ML模型在极端队列比较(CU/AD)中表现相对较好,但超级学习者(SL)、随机森林(RF)和梯度提升树(GB)算法在具有挑战性的近队列比较(CU/SCI)中表现优异。对于XAI解释比较,SHapley加性解释(SHAP)在关键性能属性上普遍优于局部可解释模型不可知解释(LIME)。结论:ML结果表明,两种基于树的方法(RF和GB)作为涉及离散临床衰老和神经退行性数据的分类任务的初始模型是可靠和有效的。在XAI阶段,由于计算时间较短(应用于RF和GB时)和纳入特征交互,SHAP比LIME表现更好,从而导致更可靠的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1426
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of the mechanisms of Central Nervous System aging and age-related neural diseases. Specialty Chief Editor Thomas Wisniewski at the New York University School of Medicine is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Distinguishing early from late mild cognitive impairment: a multi-level analysis of regional morphometry and KLS-derived network topology. Global scale-free brain activity as a potential neural signature of visual information processing in aging. New trends and hotspots in Sepsis-associated encephalopathy research: a bibliometric and visualization analysis. Intraventricular hemorrhage, suspected EBV reactivation, and TBA-positive epilepsy after deep cervical lymphovenous anastomosis in Alzheimer's disease: a case report. Autologous SVF therapy modulates neuroinflammation in ALS: phase I trial demonstrating safety and CSF biomarker dynamics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1