2017
DOI: 10.1109/access.2017.2762703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D CNN Based Automatic Diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Using Functional and Structural MRI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
153
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 264 publications
(173 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
153
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although our accuracies were modest (61.2% for children and 62.1% for adults), they were at the high end of prior results with the held-out test sets (Figure 1). Two studies reported higher test accuracies than ours (52, 53). Both studies utilized functional MRI in addition to sMRI data as features.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…Although our accuracies were modest (61.2% for children and 62.1% for adults), they were at the high end of prior results with the held-out test sets (Figure 1). Two studies reported higher test accuracies than ours (52, 53). Both studies utilized functional MRI in addition to sMRI data as features.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…Also, (Riaz et al 2017) used data from individual acquisition sites in order to validate the results in order to avoid inter-site variability. (Zou et al 2017) made use of the s-MRI and rs-fMRI data to extract six types of 3D features and introduced a 3D CNN based classifier. They achieved a maximum classification accuracy of 69.15%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They obtained an average accuracy of 62%, with a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. (Zou et al 2017) introduced a multi-modal 3D CNN approach to study ADHD. Here, the encoded structural-MRI and fMRI are jointly extracted as features and achieved a classification accuracy of 69.15%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SVM has also been applied to structural MRI and DTI data collected from adults with ADHD and controls, which reported between-group differences in widespread GM and WM regions in cortices, thalamus, and cerebellum (Chaim-Avancini et al, 2017). Meanwhile, neural network-based techniques, including deep belief network, fully connected cascade artificial neural network, convolutional neural network, extreme learning machine, and hierarchical extreme learning machine, have also been utilized to structural MRI and resting-state functional MRI (fMRI) data in children with ADHD and controls (Deshpande et al, 2015; Kuang and He, 2014; Peng et al, 2013; Qureshi et al, 2016; Qureshi et al, 2017; Zou et al, 2017). The most important group discrimination predictors identified by these neural network studies included functional connectivities within cerebellum, functional connectivity, surface area, cortical thickness and/or folding indices of frontal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital lobe and insula (Deshpande et al, 2015; Peng et al, 2013; Qureshi et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These existing studies have either utilized features representing regional/voxel brain properties collected from only single imaging modality, or the combination of two modalities (mostly structural MRI and resting-state fMRI) (Brown et al, 2012; Fair et al, 2012; Hart et al, 2014; Iannaccone et al, 2015; Johnston et al, 2014), or reported poor accuracy (Dai et al, 2012; Sen et al, 2018; Zou et al, 2017). Some studies did not conduct the very necessary step of estimating the most important features that contribute to accurate classifications (Chang et al, 2012; Dai et al, 2012; Kuang and He, 2014; Qureshi et al, 2016; Sen et al, 2018; Tenev et al, 2014; Zou et al, 2017). In this field, systems-level functional and structural features, such as global and regional topological properties from functional brain networks during cognitive processes and WM tract properties have not been considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%