2018 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/ines.2018.8523858
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of Mild Cognitive Impairment Stages Using Machine Learning Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Artificial neural network approaches. Based on the findings (mainly, that using oversampling and not using the volume of the hippocampus were considered optimal) of their previous research [ 112 ], another work from these authors compared counterpropagation networks (CPNs) with other ML systems [ 113 ]. Class balancing techniques were analyzed by comparing the performance values when the classifiers were trained with the original unbalanced data, with one where an undersampling technique was applied, and with another one balanced with the oversampling method called Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) [ 114 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Artificial neural network approaches. Based on the findings (mainly, that using oversampling and not using the volume of the hippocampus were considered optimal) of their previous research [ 112 ], another work from these authors compared counterpropagation networks (CPNs) with other ML systems [ 113 ]. Class balancing techniques were analyzed by comparing the performance values when the classifiers were trained with the original unbalanced data, with one where an undersampling technique was applied, and with another one balanced with the oversampling method called Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) [ 114 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, several studies using different approaches have investigated the early diagnosis of AD based on the classification of healthy normal people, patients with MCI, and AD patients [29,49,50,51]. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are only three studies that have investigated the classification of healthy normal people, EMCI patients, and LMCI patients [52,53,54]. The highest accuracy achieved by Korolev et al was 73% for LMCI versus NC, 67% for LMCI versus EMCI, and 63% for EMCI versus NC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar approach was proposed by Mirzai and Adeli, where supervised learning methods such as SVM, random forest and unsupervised methods such as k-means, hierarchical, fuzzy, spectral, density-based clustering, and Bayesian techniques were analysed [13]. A resampling approach was applied by Cabrera-Leon et al to alleviate class imbalance, and a counter propagation network was compared with an ensemble of nonneural networks for classifying AD [14]. Though Machine learning approaches are used in the majority of AD diagnosis strategies, it suffers from a few limitations like requiring domain knowledge for proper feature selection, and human intervention in segmentation etc., Deep learning techniques, on the other hand, have been used by researchers to improve performance in AD classification using neuroimaging data.…”
Section: Machine Learning Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%