Iijcs 2019 01 09 2 PDF

IPASJ International Journal of Computer Science (IIJCS)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJCS/IIJCS.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijcs@ipasj.org
Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 ISSN 2321-5992
Ranking based Classification of AD in Hippocampus Region

from structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging using Support
Vector Machine
Mr. R. Viswanathan1, Dr. K. Perumal2
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Information Technology and Management, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai.
2
Professor, Department of Computer Applications, School of Information Technology, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai.
Abstract: The automatic classification of Alzheimer’s disease has been widely used to investigate the Magnetic Resonance
Imaging data. In this, the use of t-test based feature ranking approach is used for feature selection procedure, where the
number of top features is determined using Fisher Criterion. The fisher criterion or Irving fisher is a linear discriminate for
classification method that projects the high discriminate data and it perform the classification in one-dimensional space. The
projection maximizes the distance between the means of two classes while minimizing the variance within each class. The
proposed classification involves five systematic levels. First, the voxel based morphometry technique is used to compare the
global and local areas of gray matter in patients with Alzheimer’s disease differentiate with healthy controls subjects. Some of
the significant differences in gray matter volume are determined as volume of interests. Second, the voxel clusters are
considered as volume of interest in which each voxel is considered to be a feature. Voxel clusters are assessing and quantifying
the MRI based treatments for therapeutic performance. Third, the features are ranked using t-test scores. In this, fisher
criterion between AD and HCs groups are calculated for changing the number of ranked features where the size of vector
maximizing the fisher criterion. It is selected as the optimal number of top discriminative features. Fourth, the classification is
performed using support vector machines. Finally, a data fusion method is used to improve the classification performance
among the voxel clusters.
Keywords: Feature ranking, Support vector machines, Lib Support Vector Machines, Fisher criterion, Voxel based
morphometry and Voxel clusters.
Introduction:
An irreversible neurodegenerative dementia occurs mostly in older adults that gradually destroy the regions of
brain which are responsible for memory, learning, thinking and behavior [1]. The cause of AD is poorly understood. It
usually start it progress slow in nature and gets worsen in less time, leads to death. It is a challenging task to detect the
Alzheimer’s disease. Among the various sub cortical structures the hippocampus has demonstrated and pronounced the
shape changes in early stages of AD. Hippocampus shape is the important biomarker for diagnosis of the disease.
Today the estimation of AD indicates that 5.3 million of aged people are suffer from this disease in 2018. This number
is expected to increase to 19 million people by 2030. AD is the only disease among the top ten causes of death in India
that cannot be cured, prevented or slowed. There is no cure to exist for AD, but early detection may aid in determining
the root of AD mechanisms and improve the quality of life for patients who suffer from AD.
In recent years, the analysis of neuroimaging data has attracted much interest, given the recent improvements
in early and accurate detection of AD [2]. The neuroimaging modalities, magnetic resonance imaging are more widely
used in Alzheimer’s disease. The related studies of its excellent spatial resolution, high availability, good contrast and
the lack of requirement for the radioactive pharmaceutical injection that is needed with positron emission tomography
(PET) or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) [3]. They used biomarkers to classify AD based on
structural magnetic resonance imaging, which can be utilized to specify the brain atrophy; functional MRI, which can
be employed to describe hemodynamic response relevant to neural activity, diffusion tensor imaging which can be used
for local micro structural characteristics of water diffusion. In this, the main focus is based on AD classification using
structural magnetic resonance imaging. The atrophy is measured by structural MRI is a powerful biomarker of the stage
and intensity of the neurodegenerative aspect of AD pathology. They are mainly based on voxel based mophometry,
region of interest, volume of interest and gray matter voxels in the automatic segmentation of images and structural
Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 1

MRI measurement of hippocampus and the medial temporal lobe. The use of statistical feature ranking approach the t-
test based as part of a feature selection process. The number of highest ranking features selected is determined by using
Fisher Criterion, which maximizes the class separation between Alzheimer’s disease and healthy control subjects.
The Fisher Criterion or Irving Fisher is used to find an optimal number of features with the most
discriminative features for the classification process. The proposed feature selection method is applied to different
atrophy to measure the voxel clusters which correspond to the volume of interests in gray matter of the MRI obtained
through voxel based morphometry analysis in preprocessing. In this, data fusion is to increase the volume classification
performance which utilizes a majority based on score fusion and a feature vector concatenation based source fusion. In
the proposed system, only the MRI data is used and combined with other different data such as Positron Emission
Tomography (PET), Cognitive Scores and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) to increase the classifier
performance.
The proposed system of work is accomplished by the systematic use of several ideas at five levels. In first level,
the VBM technique is used to analyze the group wise comparisons between cross sectional structural MRI scans, in
order to find the MRI voxels that are discriminated between AD group and HC group. The registration of MRI images
is considered through the Diffeomorphic Anatomic Registration Through Exponentiated Lie Algebra Algorithm
(DARTEL). This algorithm provides precise, accurate localization of structural damage of the MRI images. Based on
the DARTEL approach the overall and regional structural gray matter alterations are investigated to define regions
with significant atrophy of gray matter in the patients who suffer from AD. The results are obtained from 58 AD
patients when compared to 58 HCs subjects show significant gray matter decline in right / left hippocampus and in the
inferior parietal and anterior cingulated regions in patients with AD. Instead of making single global classifier, the
multiple individual classifiers based on atrophy clusters obtained using Voxel based Morph metric plus DARTEL
analysis are proposed for data fusion techniques for more accurate classification [4]. Based on the clusters, the volume
of interests is defined as follows in five ways:
1. VOI1 includes the right hippocampus region.
2. VOI2 includes the left hippocampus region.
3. VOI3 contains the right inferior parietal lobule region.
4. VOI4 includes the right anterior cingulated region.
5. VOIall contains an accumulation of all atrophy cluster regions.
In second level, the specified volume of interests is used as 3D masks to extract voxels values from volume of interests
to generate the raw feature vectors. The raw feature vectors can be used in data selection process. In third level, the
extracted features are systematically ranked based on the t-test values of respective features obtained from the training
set. The t-test considered as a statistical indicator showing the level of separation and discrimination between two
groups of AD and HCs in the training set. The fisher criterion is proposed to determine the number of features. By
using fisher criterion the optimum number of top features is obtained and identifies a subset of high performance based
features on training data in each fold, instead of using fixed number of features. In fourth level, the feature selection
technique is evaluated using support vector machines (SVM) classifiers. In this SVM is done by using Linear SVM and
Non-Linear SVM (RBF SVM) is trained to discriminate between the classes. In fifth level, proposed to increase the
overall performance by using data fusion techniques among voxel clusters. The source and score data fusion techniques
were used to achieve higher performance.
Material:
Image accession
The data and magnetic resonance images used in this work are obtained from ADNI database (Alzheimer’s disease
Neuroimaging Initiative) and Advanced KG scans from KG hospital. The MRI scans were acquired from 3 T weighted
scanners, T1 – weighted scanner with accession plane = SAGITTAL, Accession Type = 3D, Coil = Phased Arrays, Flip
angle = 9.0o, Manufacturing Model = Synora FG, Pulse Sequence = Gradient Recalled (GR) / Inversion Recovery (IR),
Slice Thickness = 1.5 mm.
Motif
The diagnostic classification was conducted by selecting a total of 136 subjects from ADNI database and grouping
them as Alzheimer’s disease and Healthy Controls Motif. The AD group contained 65 subjects ranging from age of 60

to 85 years. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Ratio (CDR) scores ranged from 17
to 27 (mean 24.83 ± 4.56) and 1.5 to 3 (mean 1.15 ± 0.81), respectively. The healthy control groups contained 68
motifs ranging in age from 60 to 85 years. The MMSE ranged from 30 to 32 mean and the clinical dementia ratio was
zero. The direct comparison revealed the dementia patients mean MMSE and CDR were significantly distinct when
compared to healthy controls subjects. No significant group differences were noted in age or sex ratio. The analytical
and characteristics of clinical AD and HCs are listed in table 1.
AD (n = 68) HC (n = 68) t-value M.D
Age 72.31 ± 5.41 72.01 ± 4.37 0.14 0.13NS
MMSE 24.83 ± 3.56 25.37 ± 0.31 11.76 -4.5*
CDR 0.56 ± 0.21 0.0 ± 0 -18.26 0.67*
Table 1: Analytical and Clinical of patients with AD and HCs Motif.

The data presented here are in mean ± standard deviation mode, AD- Alzheimer’s Disease, HC- Healthy Control
Patients’, CDR- Clinical Dementia Rating, MMSE- Mini Mental State Examination, M.D- Mean Difference.
Methodology:
The proffered new AD classification system is based on a combination t-test feature ranking and Fisher Criterion or
Irving Fisher is for the optimal selection of feature vectors for high performance Magnetic Resonance Images
classification of Alzheimer’s disease. The system involves five levels of performance for it is processing. The conduit of
the proposed system is illustrated in Fig. 1. First, the Voxel based Morph metric plus DARTEL is to perform pre-
processing on 3D MRI data. Second, a feature extraction method is used, based on VBM plus DARTEL analysis. Third,
the extracted features are ranked based on the t-test values of the respective features in the training set. In addition to
this Irving Fisher is adopted to determine the optimum the number of top ranking features. This approach determines
the optimum number of top features and identifies a discriminative subset of high performance based features on
training data. The features vectors taken from VOIs of high dimensional s-MRI data are reduced into a low
dimensional space, with improved discrimination capability. Fourth, the proposed technique is evaluated using the state
of the art SVM classifiers. The performance analysis comprises based on 136 samples images from ADNI database and
KG scan dataset. Finally, data fusion techniques among clusters are engaged to improve the classification performance.
Fig. 1. Pipeline of proffered for classifying AD.

A 10-cross folds validation is employed throughout the performance analysis, which implies of having 119 (90 %)
samples in training and 17 (10 %) samples in testing process in each iteration.

Magnetic Resonance Images data preprocessing and statistical analysis

The Magnetic Resonance Images are pre-processed using Statistical Parameter Mapping (SPM) software and the
Voxel Based Morph metric (VBM) toolbox is implemented in MATLAB. VBM is an automated technique for
assessment of whole brain structure with voxel by voxel comparisons [5]. It is developed to analysis the tissue
concentrations and to calculate the volumes between motif groups for distinguishing degenerative disease with
dementia. VBM has been applied to detect early atrophic changes in dementia. It can provide statistical results for
comparisons of patients with AD and HCs. The inter motif alignment of magnetic resonance images was increased by
applying DARTEL approach, which has been reported to optimize the sensitivity of this analysis over Voxel Based
Morph metric using the Levenberg – Marquadrdt Strategy. VBM toolbox is benefited for the unique segmentation
model with a Maximum a Posterior (MAP) technique and Partial Volume Estimation (PVE) to account for partial
volume effects, which results in more segmentation of sub cortical areas. The VBM tool is used for Spatially Adaptive
NonLocal Means (SANLM) filter for denoising and removal of MRI in homogeneities. The signal to noise ratio is
improved by employing a spatial constraint based on a classical Markov Random Field (MRF) model. Registration to a
standard MNI space consists of a linear affine transformation and a nonlinear deformation using high dimensional
DARTEL normalization.
In this the sample homogeneities are calculated by second level analysis is ensured and inspected the quality of gray
matter images using VBM toolbox. All the MR images are corrected, normalized and segmented into gray matter
(GM), white matter (WM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The normalized and segmented images are modulated using
nonlinear deformation. In this only gray matter images is used. Finally, the 8mm full width half maximum (FWHM)
Gaussian kernel is used for spatial smoothing of GM images. After spatial preprocessing, the normalized, smoothed,
modulated, DARTEL wrapped gray matter datasets are analyzed using voxel wise parametric mapping [6]. The
threshold masking of around 0.1 is used to avoid possible edge effects around the border between gray matter, white
matter and cerebrospinal fluid. The gray matter volumes changes are generated by voxel based analysis over the whole
brain. The frame work of the linear model is to detect the gray matter volumes changes in patients AD using voxel wise
in SPM.
Feature Extraction:
To isolate the volume of interests the feature extraction procedure was based on VBM plus DARTEL analysis is
applied. The brain regions significantly shows the decreased gray matter volumes were obtained using VBM plus
DARTEL analysis in AD patients related to HCs are segmented using 3D masks. For the segmented regions the
MarsBaR region of interest (ROI) tool box is used to generate cluster specific binary masks. The center coordinates of
each mask is defined by local maximum revealed by VBM plus DARTEL analysis on whole brain. The 3D mask are
applied to all the smoothed gray matter density volumes resulting from the VBM plus DARTEL analysis to extract
voxel values as raw feature vectors.
Feature Selection:
The feature vectors span a very small region in high dimensional vector space. Consequently, a feature selection
mechanism is desired in the post processing. Feature selection can be considered in the form of standard dimensionality
reduction through a standard method, such as PCA. The feature selection can be considered in the form of choosing the
most discriminative subset of available features in the raw feature vector. In this, proffered method the combination of
t-test feature ranking and the fisher criterion not only reduces the dimensionality but also increase the discriminability.
Principal Component Analysis dimensionality reduction
PCA is a statistical dimensionality reduction method that extracts a set of orthogonal principal components (PCs)
from an original dataset [6]. In this 10-fold cross validation is used for measuring the performance of classifiers with
136 samples and to imply through 119 PCs by PCA process. The number of PCs, h, used to generate the projection
vectors of the training and testing data was chosen as h = 119.
Framework of Feature Ranking
The feature ranking is to measure the relevance of features and class variables to aid in the selection of most
informative / discriminative features, thereby speeding up the learning process and promoting the performance of
classifier models, mostly when the dimensionality of the datasets is very large. Let D = [X1, X2………, XN] T be a
dataset containing N samples, where Xi = (xi1, xi2…….,xiM) is a vector of M values and each value of xij of this vector
shows its sample. The vector fj = (x1j, x2j……xNj) T is a vector of values of feature fj. Therefore D represents as N × M
matrix, where row I is the subject Xi and each column j is the feature of fj. A feature ranking algorithm is applied to
dataset D generates an ordered list of the features Ψ = [f1, f2… fj] where the superscript denotes the position in the
ranked list of feature f and this list is ordered by reduction importance. Based on feature ranking select the top k ranked

features’ [f1, f2,……,fk], k ≥ M where k determined by user. Here the t-test is used for feature ranking approach in
equation 1, as follows:
Where T is the t-test value, , , and , , are the mean, variance and number of samples of two
classes c1 and c2 respectively. The top informative features are selected by ranking all features according to T values.
Optimal number of features based on Fisher Criterion:
In addition to the feature ranking algorithm, based on the discriminative performance of the features, the use
of an automatic approach is used based on the Fisher Criterion, where J (w), is given in equation 2, to determine the
number of top discriminative features [7]. Thereby to reducing the dimensionality of the prospective feature vectors is
given as follows:
Where SB and SW represent the determinants of between class and within class scatter matrices, respectively. For two
classes’ c1 and c2, the class scatters and within class scatter matrixes are determined in the equation 3 as follows:
Where and μci is the mean of data in each class. This approach helps in
adaptively determining the k top discriminative features based on ranked t-test values using training data in each
fold instead of using a fixed k. Once the features are ranked, the number of top ranked features iteratively increases
from 1 to M (number of features) by calculating the respective Fisher Criterion. The number of top ranked features
maximizing the Fisher Criterion is selected to be the optimal number of top ranked features k.
Support Vector Machine Classifier
To classify the AD patients apart from HCs subjects is done by using the classification model, where as by
SVM algorithm. The SVM is a powerful classifier based on statistical learning principles. The SVM algorithm has been
used successfully in a number of recent application machine learning studies. During the training, SVM seeks the
optimal class separating hyper-plane in the maximal margin. Various kernels can be used during SVM training, such as
linear, quadratic, polynomial, and radial basis function (RBF). In this, SVM is performed using LIBSVM and the linear
and nonlinear (RBF) kernels [3, 4 & 7]. A reliable measurement is achieved by obtaining all performance results using the
10-fold cross validation illustrated in figure 2. The RBF model has two parameters that need to be selected: C
(regularization) and γ (controls the kernel width); the performance of the classifier depends on these parameters. The C
and γ parameters are tuned using the training set, where two cross validation (CV) procedures with grid search are
combined.
This approach is performed to avoid unwrap bias in the estimation of accuracies produced by the CV
procedure. This procedure includes two nested loops. In the outer loop, the data are split into K1 folds (K1 = 10) at each
step: one fold is used as a test and remaining K1 − 1 folds for training and validation. In the inner loop, training data (K1 − 1
folds) are further divided into K2 folds (K2 = 10). For each combination of C and γ, the classifier is trained using training data
and its performance is assessed using the fold remaining for validation by estimating the classification accuracy. One fold is left
for validation and the remaining K2 − 1 fold is used for training, combined with grid search to determine the optimal
parameters.
In the grid search, the values of C and γ are varied among the candidate sets {2−5, 2−4… 0, 219, 220} and {2−15, 2−14…
0… 2 , 215}, respectively. The inner loop is repeated K2 times, measuring the accuracy of the classifier across the K2 folds for
14

every combination of C and γ. The optimal parameters that produce maximum average accuracy across the K2folds are
selected, and then the class label of the test data is predicted, which is left out in the outer loop using the selected optimal
parameters. The above procedure is repeated K1 times by leaving a different fold as test data which are used to compute the
classification accuracy. For SVM with a linear kernel, only the C parameter is tuned. Over-fitting is prevented by splitting
the data into 10 parts, where the training set gets 9 parts and the test set gets 1 part. The data in the training set are used
for parameter estimation, whereas the data in the test set are used to measure the performance. This process is repeated
10 times in the context of 10-fold cross validation, where no overlap of the testing sets occurs in this process [8].
The classification results are calculated by means of accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and
area under the curve (AUC), based on 10-fold cross validation. The parameters are as follows:
Where as;
TP (True Positive) - The number of AD is correctly identified as AD.
TN (True Negative) - The number of HC patients correctly identified as HC.
FN (False Negative) – The number of AD patients is incorrectly identified as HC.
FP (False Positive) – The number of HC patients incorrectly identified as AD.
Fig 2: 10 – fold cross validation method used for parameter tuning and performance testing.

Data fusion among atrophy clusters
In this data fusion technique is used among atrophy clusters (VOIs) to improve the performance of the
proposed AD classification method. The aim of the data fusion technique is to integrate the data from two or more
distinct multiple sources of vectors and classifiers to improve performance. In the current work, the two different
fusion techniques are used: source fusion and score fusion.
Source data fusion

In the scheme of source data fusion, the top features selected based on our approach, described in Feature
Selection, from different VOIs, and are concatenated into a single feature vector. Assuming fv1, fv2… fvn are feature
vectors generated using proposed feature selection method for each atrophy cluster, the feature vector fusion (FVF) is
then:
Where mi is the vector length for fvi . This concatenated feature vector is then used for classification. The source
data fusion relies on procedures for feature contraction [8].
Score data fusion

Score data fusion includes multiple classifiers and a combination method. The number of classifiers is
determined based on the number of atrophy clusters obtained using the VBM plus DARTEL approach in the pre-
processing. In this work, the majority voting method is employed as the score data fusion technique. Majority voting is
one of the most versatile combination methods, because of its simplicity and performance on real data [9]. The adopted
score data fusion framework is illustrated in figure 3.
Results and Discussion:
The experimental results obtained through the pre-processing phase using VBM plus DARTEL analysis on 3D
T1-weighted MR imaging, as an indicator disclosing the significance of decreased gray matter volumes in AD
contributing to VOIs. The performance of the proposed feature selection method based on t-test ranking and the Fisher
Criterion is also measured. Finally, the performance results obtained through data fusion are presented and analyzed. The
performance of the classification using SVM classifiers with 10-fold cross validation is reported for the following cases:
 Performance of raw feature vectors directly extracted from VBM.
 Performance of PCA data reduction method.
 Performance of proposed t-test feature-ranking technique using the optimal number of top features
based on the Fisher Criterion.
 Performance of the proposed data fusion techniques among atrophy clusters of GM. The ACC (%),
SEN (%), SPE (%) and AUC (%) performance metrics are used for the performance assessment.

Figure 3: Voting based Score Data Fusion

Differences in gray matter volume between ADs and HCs
The gray matter volume atrophy differences between patients who suffer from AD and HC are
summarized in table 2. The group comparison by VBM plus DARTEL reveals a significant decline
in GM volume in the right hippocampus (Talairach coordinates 26, −11, −9, x, y, z; z = Inferior),
left hippocampus (−25, −15, −8, x, y, z; z = Inferior), right inferior parietal lobule (55, −44, 25, x,
y, z; z = 7.22), and right anterior cingulated (8, 42, 2, x, y, z; z = 6.54) (see table 2 and figure 4
for detail brain regions where there are significant grey matters reduction) in patients with AD when
compared to the HCs.
Location of Peak Hemisphere Cluster Talairach MNI Z Value T Value

Voxels Size (No Coordinates coordinates (Peak (Peak
of Voxel) Voxel)
Voxels
Hippocampus – R 16069 26,-11,-9 27,-9,-15 Inferior 10.94
Amygdala
Hippocampus – L 16974 -25,-15,-8 -26,-13,-14 Inferior 10.36
lateral
globuspallidus
Inferior Parietal R 1454 55,-44,25 56,-46,25 7.22 8
Lobule
Anterior R 2032 8,42,2 9,47,3 6.54 6.54
Cingulate
Table 2: Clusters of Grey matter atrophy of 68 AD verses 68 HCs.

Figure 4: Brain regions where there is significant grey matter reduction in 68 patients with
Alzheimers Disease with age of 68 Healthy Control Subjects.
In figure 5 illustrates the six dimensional views of group comparison representing the relative
grey matter atrophy in patients with AD compared to HCs. The voxel locations of significant
atrophy regions are used as 3D VOI masks. These 3D VOI masks are applied to the grey matter
density volume results from the segmentation step in VBM plus DARTEL analysis in order to
extract voxel values into raw feature vectors for use in feature selection and classification. Based on
the atrophy clusters, the five different VOIs as follows:
 VOI1 includes the right hippocampus and amygdale regions. The center of this mask is
at talairach coordinates where as x = 26, y = -11, z = -9. VOI1 voxel values as a raw
feature vector.
 VOI2 includes the left hippocampus lateral globus pallidus regions. The center of this
mask is at talairach coordinates x = -25, y = -15, z = -8. VOI2 contains 16974 voxel
values as a raw feature vector.
 VOI3 includes the right inferior parietal lobule regions. The center of this mask is at
talairach coordinates x = 55, y = -44, z = 25. VOI3 contains 1454 voxel values as a raw
feature vector.
 VOI4 includes the right anterior cingulated regions. The center of this mask is at
talairach coordinates x = 8, y = 42, z = 2. VOI4 contains 2032 voxel values as a raw
feature vector.
 VOIall includes all regions of gray matter loss – atrophy. VOIall contains all four
clusters above with 36529 voxel values as a raw feature vector.
Consummation of the raw feature vectors

The complete magnetic resonance images dataset consists of 68 AD and 68 Healthy Control
subjects. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were obtained by 10-fold
cross validation using support vector machine classifier on raw feature vectors from five different
VOIs are shown in table 3. The results indicate the average performance in terms of accuracy,
sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve obtained from five atrophy clusters using RBF SVM,
is marginally better than Linear SVM. The RBF kernel is generally more flexible than the linear
kernel so it generally can model more functions with its function space.

Figure 5: Three dimensional reconstruction of the brain showing gray matter atrophy using
VBM technique plus DARTEL. The regions of gray matter loss are shown from a) anterior, b)
posterior, c) right lateral, d) left lateral, e) inferior and f) superior view. The red region represents the
region of gray matter loss.
Linear SVM RBF SVM
ACC SEN SPE (%) AUC ACC SEN SPE (%) AUC
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
VOI1 80.14 79.41 80.77 84.37 81.35 80.77 82.81 87.71
VOI2 77.20 77.94 75.47 83.93 78.41 75.47 81.35 86.69
VOI3 71.32 70.38 71.05 74.63 74.25 71.05 77.34 80.25
VOI4 69.85 69.07 70.49 77.82 71.52 72.52 66.54 77.33
VOIall 77.20 79.21 74.58 83.39 82.35 82.82 82.79 85.00
Average 75.14 75.20 74.47 80.82 77.57 76.52 78.16 83.39
Table 3: Raw feature vectors consummation of atrophy clusters using 10 fold cross validation.
Here the center of the mask in talairach coordinates corresponds to the center of the mass of the
respective 3D VOI.
Staging of the PCA method
To extract the raw feature vectors PCA based reduction method is utilized. For each dataset, the
features extracted are reduced to lower dimensional features using PCA, with 122 PCs. The classifier
performance are obtained using 10-fold cross validation for support vector machines classifiers in

terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under curve was shown in table 4. The average
accuracy of feature vectors with 122 PCs for linear and Radial Basis Function SVM classifier was
74.02% and 77.08% respectively, the average accuracy for raw feature vectors while using without
dimensionality reduction was 75.14% and 77.23% respectively. The PCA introduces the
dimensionality reduction and generates comparable performance with the raw data.
Linear SVM RBF SVM
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
VOI1 79.41 81.35 75.47 85.80 81.61 85.76 75.47 87.27
VOI2 74.26 75.47 71.50 82.06 82.35 81.35 81.35 86.59
VOI3 70.58 72.52 67.54 71.48 69.85 68.85 70.11 77.33
VOI4 69.58 69.11 70.58 80.54 71.32 70.32 75.47 78.35
VOIall 77.20 75.17 71.34 86.47 85.29 84.29 82.52 87.74
Average 74.20 74.72 71.28 81.27 78.08 78.11 76.98 83.45
Table 4: PCA staging of atrophy clusters using 10-fold cross validation with 122 PCs.
Note: ACC – Accuracy, SEN – Sensitivity, SPE – Specificity, AUC – Area Under Curve, SVM –
Support Vector Machine, RBF – Radial Basis Function.
Performance of the proposed feature selection using t-test ranking and the Fisher Criterion
The feature selection technique is used for the t-test, for ranking the features. The Fisher
Criterion is used to determine the optimal number of top features. The Fisher scores for the
samples in the training set from fold 1 of VOIall for the top 250 ranked features. The maximum
Fisher score is located at 111, which means that 111 top-ranked features are to be used in the
classification process. Typical Fisher scores are observed between 30 and 150 for all folds of 5
different VOIs. The contribution of the features in relevance to their t-test values is highly
correlated [10]. A higher t-test rank implies higher performance of the respective feature. A
logarithmic scale is used to cover the entire feature space.
The performance increases with the increased number of ranked features used in the
classification. However, after a certain maximum, which corresponds to 111 top ranked features in
this fold, the performance does not increase further. The SVM-based classifiers are used to
observe the classification performance of the selected feature vectors from five different
VOIs. The results of classifiers are presented in Table 5.
The average accuracy for raw data for linear and RBF SVM classifiers is 75.14% and
78.23%, respectively, while the average accuracy for the proposed feature selection method is

86.76% and 86.76%, respectively. The improvement is around 10% for all performance
indicators: ACC, SEN, SPE, and AUC.
Performance of data fusion among atrophy clusters
The performance improvement aided by data fusion of five clusters is shown in Table 6. The
performance of both types of data fusion techniques is around 10% higher than the average
performance obtained with individual clusters [11]. The performance of the majority voting (score
fusion) approach is always higher than or equal to the performance of the source concatenation
(source fusion) approach. Table 6 shows that data fusion among atrophy clusters of GM volumes
integrates information by improving the classification performance in all terms.
Linear SVM RBF SVM
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
VOI1 91.17 92.64 88.70 95.90 90.44 88.70 90.17 94.07
VOI2 92.64 91.17 93.11 96.93 94.11 91.64 94.58 97.74
VOI3 76.47 73.52 78.41 83.93 76.47 75.00 76.84 83.66
VOI4 79.41 75.00 81.82 85.67 80.14 72.52 85.76 88.29
VOIall 94.11 95.58 91.64 96.33 92.64 93.11 90.17 97.13
Average 86.76 85.58 86.73 91.75 86.76 84.19 87.50 92.17
Table 5: Performance results of the Feature Selection method.

Linear SVM RBF SVM
ACC SEN SPE AUC ACC SEN SPE AUC

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Source 95.35 93.11 96.05 96.52 95.35 93.09 96.05 96.31
Concatenation
Majority 96.12 93.11 97.52 98.93 95.39 93.11 96.05 98.72
Voting
Table 6: Performance of data fusion technique among atrophy clusters of Gray Matter.

Conclusion:
The main propound is a feature selection method was used in t-test based feature ranking, which is
mainly for classification of Alzheimer’s disease. The optimal size of the selected features is
determined by using the Irving Fisher, which maximizes the class separation between Alzheimer’s
disease and Healthy Control. The feature selection is applied to all voxels that passes through masks
modeled by overall atrophy clusters are determined by using VBM analysis plus DARTEL analysis.
The talaiarch coordinates is a 3 dimensional co-ordinate system of human brain, which is used to map
the location of Alzheimer’s disease independently from individual difference in the size and overall
shape of hippocampus region in human brain. Talaiarch is for functional brain imaging on Alzheimer’s
disease and to target transactional simulation of brain regions. It is also rightly called as Tournoux
system. Linear and RBF kernel based Support Vector Machine classifiers are used for the
classification of extracted features vectors after the propounded feature selection method. A
consummation improvement is also initiate by applying data fusion among the individual atrophy
clusters as well as overall atrophy clusters. The data fusion technique such as source and score fusion
are used to obtain improved staging in the classification of Alzheimer’s disease. The performance is
measured with 136 subjects, where as 68 Alzheimer’s disease and 68 Healthy Controls Subjects, the
complete data set is obtained from open source technologies of ADNI data set and from Advance KG
scan research center using 10-fold cross validation. The results show the propound approach for
accuracy, specificity and area under the curve is highly competitive with the state of art techniques
using Magnetic Resonance Images data.
References:
[1.] Alzheimer’s association, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. http://www.alz.org/;2015. [Accessed
April 5, 2015].
[2.] Liu C, Cai W, Wen L, Feng DD, Pujol S, Kikins R, et al. Multichannel neurodegenerative
pattern analysis and its application in Alzheimer’s disease characterization. Compute Med
Imaging Graph 2014; 38:436-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2014.05.003.
[3.] Weiner MW, Veitech DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Green RC, et al. 2014 Update of the
alzheimers disease neuroimaging initative: a review of papers published since its inception.
Alzheimers dement 2015;11:e1-120. http://dx.doi.org/j.jalz.2014.11.001.
[4.] Hanyu H, Sato T, Hiaro K, Kanetaka H, Iwamoto T, Koizumi K. The progression of cognitive
deterioration and regional cerebral blood flow patterns in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitude
SPECT study. J Neuro Sci2010; 290:96-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2009.10.022.
[5.] Gray KR, Wolz R, Heckemann RA, Aljabar P, Hammers A, Rueckert D, Multiregion analysis of
longitudinal FDG-PET for the classifications of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage 2012;60:221-
9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.071.
[6.] Chen YJ, Deutsch G, Satya R, Liu HG, Mountz JM. A semi quantitative method for
correlating brain disease groups with normal controls using SPECT: Alzheimer’s disease
versus vascular dementia. Compute Med Imaging Graph 2013;37:40-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2012.11.001.

[7.] Górriz JM, Segovia F, Ramírez J, Lassl A, Salas-Gonzalez D. GMM based SPECT image
classification for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11:2313-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.08.012.
[8.] Zhang D, Wang Y, Zhou L, Yuan H, Shen D. Multimodal classification of

Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Neuroimage 2011; 55:856-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.008.
[9.] Papakostas GA, Savio A, Graña M, Kaburlasos VG. A lattice computing approach to
Alzheimer’s disease computer assisted diagnosis based on MRI data. Neuroimaging 2015;
150:37-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.02.076.
[10.] Beheshti I, Demirel H. Probability distribution function based classification of structural

MRI for the detection Alzheimer’s disease. Comput Bio Med 2015;64:208-16.
http://dx.doi.org/j.compbiomed.2015.07.006.
[11.] Aguilar C, Westman E, Muehlboeck JS, Mecocci P, Vellas B, Tsolaki M, et al.

Different multivariate techniques for automated classification of MRI data in
alzheimers disease and mild cognitive impairment. Neuroimaging 2013; 212:89-98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.11.005.

Iijcs 2019 01 09 2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Iijcs 2019 01 09 2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IPASJ International Journal of Computer Science (IIJCS)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJCS/IIJCS.htm

Ranking based Classification of AD in Hippocampus Region

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 1

2. VOI2 includes the left hippocampus region.

3. VOI3 contains the right inferior parietal lobule region.

4. VOI4 includes the right anterior cingulated region.

5. VOIall contains an accumulation of all atrophy cluster regions.

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 2

Table 1: Analytical and Clinical of patients with AD and HCs Motif.

Fig. 1. Pipeline of proffered for classifying AD.

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 3

Magnetic Resonance Images data preprocessing and statistical analysis

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 4

Support Vector Machine Classifier

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 5

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 6

Data fusion among atrophy clusters

Source data fusion

Score data fusion

Results and Discussion:

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 7

Figure 3: Voting based Score Data Fusion

Location of Peak Hemisphere Cluster Talairach MNI Z Value T Value

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 8

Consummation of the raw feature vectors

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 9

VOI2 77.20 77.94 75.47 83.93 78.41 75.47 81.35 86.69

VOI3 71.32 70.38 71.05 74.63 74.25 71.05 77.34 80.25

VOI4 69.85 69.07 70.49 77.82 71.52 72.52 66.54 77.33

VOIall 77.20 79.21 74.58 83.39 82.35 82.82 82.79 85.00

Average 75.14 75.20 74.47 80.82 77.57 76.52 78.16 83.39

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 10

Linear SVM RBF SVM

VOI2 74.26 75.47 71.50 82.06 82.35 81.35 81.35 86.59

VOI3 70.58 72.52 67.54 71.48 69.85 68.85 70.11 77.33

VOI4 69.58 69.11 70.58 80.54 71.32 70.32 75.47 78.35

VOIall 77.20 75.17 71.34 86.47 85.29 84.29 82.52 87.74

Average 74.20 74.72 71.28 81.27 78.08 78.11 76.98 83.45

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 11

Performance of data fusion among atrophy clusters

Linear SVM RBF SVM

VOI2 92.64 91.17 93.11 96.93 94.11 91.64 94.58 97.74

VOI3 76.47 73.52 78.41 83.93 76.47 75.00 76.84 83.66

VOI4 79.41 75.00 81.82 85.67 80.14 72.52 85.76 88.29

VOIall 94.11 95.58 91.64 96.33 92.64 93.11 90.17 97.13

Average 86.76 85.58 86.73 91.75 86.76 84.19 87.50 92.17

Table 5: Performance results of the Feature Selection method.

Linear SVM RBF SVM

ACC SEN SPE AUC ACC SEN SPE AUC

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 12

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 13

[8.] Zhang D, Wang Y, Zhou L, Yuan H, Shen D. Multimodal classification of

[10.] Beheshti I, Demirel H. Probability distribution function based classification of structural

[11.] Aguilar C, Westman E, Muehlboeck JS, Mecocci P, Vellas B, Tsolaki M, et al.

Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2019 Page 14

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen