Researcher profile

Anne Bertrand

Anne Bertrand contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Accuracy of MRI Classification Algorithms in a Tertiary Memory Center Clinical Routine Cohort

BACKGROUND:Automated volumetry software (AVS) has recently become widely available to neuroradiologists. MRI volumetry with AVS may support the diagnosis of dementias by identifying regional atrophy. Moreover, automatic classifiers using machine learning techniques have recently emerged as promising approaches to assist diagnosis. However, the performance of both AVS and automatic classifiers has been evaluated mostly in the artificial setting of research datasets.OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to evaluate the performance of two AVS and an automatic classifier in the clinical routine condition of a memory clinic.METHODS:We studied 239 patients with cognitive troubles from a single memory center cohort. Using clinical routine T1-weighted MRI, we evaluated the classification performance of: 1) univariate volumetry using two AVS (volBrain and Neuroreader$^{TM}$); 2) Support Vector Machine (SVM) automatic classifier, using either the AVS volumes (SVM-AVS), or whole gray matter (SVM-WGM); 3) reading by two neuroradiologists. The performance measure was the balanced diagnostic accuracy. The reference standard was consensus diagnosis by three neurologists using clinical, biological (cerebrospinal fluid) and imaging data and following international criteria.RESULTS:Univariate AVS volumetry provided only moderate accuracies (46% to 71% with hippocampal volume). The accuracy improved when using SVM-AVS classifier (52% to 85%), becoming close to that of SVM-WGM (52 to 90%). Visual classification by neuroradiologists ranged between SVM-AVS and SVM-WGM.CONCLUSION:In the routine practice of a memory clinic, the use of volumetric measures provided by AVS yields only moderate accuracy. Automatic classifiers can improve accuracy and could be a useful tool to assist diagnosis.

preprint2020arXiv

Reproducible evaluation of diffusion MRI features for automatic classification of patients with Alzheimers disease

Diffusion MRI is the modality of choice to study alterations of white matter. In past years, various works have used diffusion MRI for automatic classification of AD. However, classification performance obtained with different approaches is difficult to compare and these studies are also difficult to reproduce. In the present paper, we first extend a previously proposed framework to diffusion MRI data for AD classification. Specifically, we add: conversion of diffusion MRI ADNI data into the BIDS standard and pipelines for diffusion MRI preprocessing and feature extraction. We then apply the framework to compare different components. First, FS has a positive impact on classification results: highest balanced accuracy (BA) improved from 0.76 to 0.82 for task CN vs AD. Secondly, voxel-wise features generally gives better performance than regional features. Fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) provided comparable results for voxel-wise features. Moreover, we observe that the poor performance obtained in tasks involving MCI were potentially caused by the small data samples, rather than by the data imbalance. Furthermore, no extensive classification difference exists for different degree of smoothing and registration methods. Besides, we demonstrate that using non-nested validation of FS leads to unreliable and over-optimistic results: 0.05 up to 0.40 relative increase in BA. Lastly, with proper FR and FS, the performance of diffusion MRI features is comparable to that of T1w MRI. All the code of the framework and the experiments are publicly available: general-purpose tools have been integrated into the Clinica software package (www.clinica.run) and the paper-specific code is available at: https://github.com/aramis-lab/AD-ML.