Researcher profile

Didier Dormont

Didier Dormont contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
6topics
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

3 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

Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Alzheimer's Disease: Overview and Reproducible Evaluation

Over 30 papers have proposed to use convolutional neural network (CNN) for AD classification from anatomical MRI. However, the classification performance is difficult to compare across studies due to variations in components such as participant selection, image preprocessing or validation procedure. Moreover, these studies are hardly reproducible because their frameworks are not publicly accessible and because implementation details are lacking. Lastly, some of these papers may report a biased performance due to inadequate or unclear validation or model selection procedures. In the present work, we aim to address these limitations through three main contributions. First, we performed a systematic literature review and found that more than half of the surveyed papers may have suffered from data leakage. Our second contribution is the extension of our open-source framework for classification of AD using CNN and T1-weighted MRI. Finally, we used this framework to rigorously compare different CNN architectures. The data was split into training/validation/test sets at the very beginning and only the training/validation sets were used for model selection. To avoid any overfitting, the test sets were left untouched until the end of the peer-review process. Overall, the different 3D approaches (3D-subject, 3D-ROI, 3D-patch) achieved similar performances while that of the 2D slice approach was lower. Of note, the different CNN approaches did not perform better than a SVM with voxel-based features. The different approaches generalized well to similar populations but not to datasets with different inclusion criteria or demographical characteristics.

preprint2020arXiv

Visualization approach to assess the robustness of neural networks for medical image classification

The use of neural networks for diagnosis classification is becoming more and more prevalent in the medical imaging community. However, deep learning method outputs remain hard to explain. Another difficulty is to choose among the large number of techniques developed to analyze how networks learn, as all present different limitations. In this paper, we extended the framework of Fong and Vedaldi [IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017] to visualize the training of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on 3D quantitative neuroimaging data. Our application focuses on the detection of Alzheimer's disease with gray matter probability maps extracted from structural MRI. We first assessed the robustness of the visualization method by studying the coherence of the longitudinal patterns and regions identified by the network. We then studied the stability of the CNN training by computing visualization-based similarity indexes between different re-runs of the CNN. We demonstrated that the areas identified by the CNN were consistent with what is known of Alzheimer's disease and that the visualization approach extract coherent longitudinal patterns. We also showed that the CNN training is not stable and that the areas identified mainly depend on the initialization and the training process. This issue may exist in many other medical studies using deep learning methods on datasets in which the number of samples is too small and the data dimension is high. This means that it may not be possible to rely on deep learning to detect stable regions of interest in this field yet.