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 4.1 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":4.1000,"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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
TP53 mutations are frequently concurrent in patients with BRAF V600E mutated solid tumors and is associated with shorter duration of response to BRAF targeted therapy
IF 8.4 1区 医学European Journal of CancerPub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(22)01115-7
M. Eriksen, C. Yde, L. B. Ahlborn, C. Qvortrup, U. Lassen, M. Højgaard, I. Spanggaard, K. Rohrberg
Abstract 3254: Multiomics detect potential mechanisms of resistance to BRAF targeted therapy in patients with BRAFV600E mutated solid tumors
IF 11.2 1区 医学Cancer researchPub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-3254
M. Eriksen, A. B. Nielsen, F. Mundt, Josephine Kerzel Duel, Matthias Mann, U. Lassen, C. Yde, C. Qvortrup, M. Højgaard, I. Spanggaard, K. Rohrberg
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
Characteristics of cerebral glucose metabolism in patients with cognitive impairment in multiple system atrophy. Cognitive outcomes after extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery in elderly patients diagnosed with atherosclerotic cerebral steno-occlusive artery disease. Comparing the efficacy of physical therapy interventions in Alzheimer's disease: a network meta-analysis. Editorial: Alzheimer's disease: new insights into biomechanisms and therapeutic target. Role of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-left primary motor cortex interaction in motor inhibition in Parkinson's disease.
×
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:481959085
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