Machine learning approaches to diagnosis and laterality effects in semantic dementia discourse

683 Low serum norepinephrine level and small night blood glucose curve area in dementia of Alzheimer's type

Complaints related to memory are characteristic of normal ageing, affective disorders, and are a cardinal feature of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), the proposed prodrome to Alzheimer disease proper. The aim of this study was to investigate the profile of subjective memory complaints in different cognitive syndromes. Subjective memory was assessed using the Cambridge Memory Complaints Questionnaire consisting of 20 questions about everyday aspects of memory. This was completed by 22 "worried well" (WW), 85 aMCI, and 40 semantic dementia (SD) patients at first presentation to a memory clinic. All patients were followed up for 2 years. A principal component factor analysis revealed 5 principal factors pertaining to working, episodic, topographical, and semantic memory. All factors, except topographical memory, reliably differentiated SD patients from other groups, with aMCI and WW patients complaining significantly more about working and episodic memory, and SD patients complaining significantly more about semantic memory. WW and aMCI patients, however, could not be differentiated, even those aMCI patients who progressed to dementia. Memory complaints are strikingly similar to the description of typical core deficits in SD patients. The sole reliance on memory complaints for insight into memory functioning and diagnosing aMCI is problematic.

A snake that bites its own tail. Acquisition and loss of concepts in children and semantic dementia patients through the analysis of drawings

When the zebra loses its stripes: Semantic priming in early Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia

To assess the ability of a brief neuropsychological bedside screening battery to discriminate between Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, and semantic dementia. Subjects were 21 patients with frontotemporal dementia, 14 patients with semantic dementia, and 30 patients with Alzheimer disease comparable in terms of Mini Mental Status Examination score, age, and education. Frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia diagnoses were made clinically using the consensus criteria of Neary et al. 1 Subjects were administered a brief neuropsychological screening assessing episodic memory, working memory, executive function, naming, spatial ability, abstract reasoning, and calculations. Both the Alzheimer disease and semantic dementia groups were significantly impaired relative to the frontotemporal dementia group on verbal memory, whereas only the Alzheimer disease group was impaired on visual memory. Frontotemporal dementia patients performed significantly worse on backward digit span and made significantly more executive errors than Alzheimer disease and semantic dementia patients. Semantic dementia patients were more impaired than Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal dementia patients on confrontation naming. Discriminant function analyses identified the 5 most discriminating variables that correctly classified 89.2% of cases. Frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and Alzheimer disease are associated with distinct neuropsychological profiles that classify these dementia syndromes with considerable success. The neuropsychological profiles highlight the distinctiveness between the 3 syndromes, are consistent with the known loci of neuropathology in these conditions, and can potentially serve as an adjunct to the current clinical criteria.

Multidimensional measures of person knowledge and spatial associative learning: can these be applied to the differentiation of Alzheimer's disease from frontotemporal and vascular dementia?

Recent technological advances allowed an exponential expansion of biological sequence data, and the extraction of meaningful information through Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. This knowledge improved the understanding of the mechanisms related to several fatal diseases, e.g., Cancer and COVID-19, helping to develop innovative solutions, such as CRISPR-based gene editing, coronavirus vaccine, and precision medicine. These advances benefit our society and economy, directly impacting peoples lives in various areas, such as health care, drug discovery, forensic analysis, and food analysis. Nevertheless, ML approaches applied to biological data require representative, quantitative, and informative features. Necessarily, as many ML algorithms can handle only numerical data, sequences need to be translated into a feature vector. This process, known as feature extraction, is a fundamental step for the elaboration of high-quality ML-based models in bioinformatics, by allowing the feature engineering stage, with the design and selection of suitable features. Feature engineering, ML algorithm selection, and hyperparameter tuning are often manual and time-consuming processes, requiring extensive domain knowledge, and performed manually by a human expert. To deal with this problem, we developed a new package, BioAutoML, which automatically runs an end-to-end ML pipeline. BioAutoML extracts numerical and informative features from biological sequence databases, automating feature selection, recommendation of ML algorithm(s), and tuning of hyperparameters, using Automated ML (AutoML). BioAutoML has two components, divided into four modules, (1) automated feature engineering (feature extraction and selection modules) and (2) Metalearning (algorithm recommendation and hyperparameter tuning modules). Our experimental results, assessing the relevance of our proposal, indicate robust results for different problem domains, such as SARS-CoV-2, anticancer peptides, HIV sequences, and non-coding RNAs. According to our systematic review, our proposal is innovative compared to available studies in the literature, being the first study to propose automated feature engineering and metalearning for biological sequences. BioAutoML has a high potential to significantly reduce the expertise required to use ML pipelines, aiding researchers in combating diseases, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This initiative can provide biologists, physicians, epidemiologists, and other stakeholders with an opportunity for widespread use of these techniques to enhance the health and well-being of their communities.

This research study intends to identify hypertension by using machine learning techniques. When blood vessel pressure rises, it results in hypertension (high blood pressure), this condition can cause heart disease and possibly renal failure. Therefore, the early diagnosis can eliminate high-risk and be treated in the early stages, which is made feasible by Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. In this work, machine learning algorithms such as random forests, decision trees, multinomial naive bayes, and logistic regression are applied. The model performance is then determined by their accuracy, F1 score, recall, etc. It has been found through a comparison of algorithms that the accuracy of both Logistic Regression (LR) and Decision Tree (DT) are higher.

SummaryAccurate prediction of the solubility of chemical substances in solvents remains a challenge. The sparsity of high-quality solubility data is recognized as the biggest hurdle in the development of robust data-driven methods for practical use. Nonetheless, the effects of the quality and quantity of data on aqueous solubility predictions have not yet been scrutinized. In this study, the roles of the size and the quality of data sets on the performances of the solubility prediction models are unraveled, and the concepts of actual and observed performances are introduced. In an effort to curtail the gap between actual and observed performances, a quality-oriented data selection method, which evaluates the quality of data and extracts the most accurate part of it through statistical validation, is designed. Applying this method on the largest publicly available solubility database and using a consensus machine learning approach, a top-performing solubility prediction model is achieved.

The aging and multimorbid population and health personnel shortages pose a substantial burden on primary health care. While predictive machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to address these challenges, concerns include transparency and insufficient reporting of model validation and effectiveness of the implementation in the clinical workflow. To systematically identify predictive ML algorithms implemented in primary care from peer-reviewed literature and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européene (CE) registration databases and to ascertain the public availability of evidence, including peer-reviewed literature, gray literature, and technical reports across the artificial intelligence (AI) life cycle. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, MathSciNet, AAAI.org (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence), arXiv, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between January 2000 and July 2023, with search terms that were related to AI, primary care, and implementation. The search extended to CE-marked or FDA-approved predictive ML algorithms obtained from relevant registration databases. Three reviewers gathered subsequent evidence involving strategies such as product searches, exploration of references, manufacturer website visits, and direct inquiries to authors and product owners. The extent to which the evidence for each predictive ML algorithm aligned with the Dutch AI predictive algorithm (AIPA) guideline requirements was assessed per AI life cycle phase, producing evidence availability scores. The systematic search identified 43 predictive ML algorithms, of which 25 were commercially available and CE-marked or FDA-approved. The predictive ML algorithms spanned multiple clinical domains, but most (27 [63%]) focused on cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Most (35 [81%]) were published within the past 5 years. The availability of evidence varied across different phases of the predictive ML algorithm life cycle, with evidence being reported the least for phase 1 (preparation) and phase 5 (impact assessment) (19% and 30%, respectively). Twelve (28%) predictive ML algorithms achieved approximately half of their maximum individual evidence availability score. Overall, predictive ML algorithms from peer-reviewed literature showed higher evidence availability compared with those from FDA-approved or CE-marked databases (45% vs 29%). The findings indicate an urgent need to improve the availability of evidence regarding the predictive ML algorithms' quality criteria. Adopting the Dutch AIPA guideline could facilitate transparent and consistent reporting of the quality criteria that could foster trust among end users and facilitating large-scale implementation.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms seek to extract the most beneficial information out of the raw data. As mentioned in previous chapters, preprocess data preparation actions might be needed in order to make the data set ready to be fed into the ML algorithms. ML algorithms have gotten the attention of researchers all over the world during the last few decades. In traditional algorithms, the analyst had to define the rules, which was not always accessible or easily possible, in order to obtain the output. ML algorithms develop the models or rules based on the training data set which include input and output data points. ML algorithms try to understand more beneficial information regarding the system based on the training data set. The built model can be tested using the verification data set which does not have any overlap with the training sets. If the model acquires the acceptable performance measures, it can be applied for other cases to perform the prediction process. It should be considered that ML algorithms are not supposed to do the magic. Indeed, they are supposed to explore and analyze the training data, which the human brain is not able to handle that, to develop a predictive model in which its performance is acceptable for the verification data set. Predictive models should be generalized which means performing satisfactorily for both training and verifying data sets.

The purpose of this analysis is to assess the use of machine learning (ML) algorithms in the prediction of postoperative outcomes, including complications, recurrence, and death in transsphenoidal surgery. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed all papers that used at least one ML algorithm to predict outcomes after transsphenoidal surgery. We searched Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for studies published prior to May 12, 2021. We identified 13 studies enrolling 5,048 patients. We extracted the general characteristics of each study; the sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) of the ML models developed as well as the features identified as important by the ML models. We identified 12 studies with 5,048 patients that included ML algorithms for adenomas, three with 1807 patients specifically for acromegaly, and five with 2105 patients specifically for Cushing's disease. Nearly all were single-institution studies. The studies used a heterogeneous mix of ML algorithms and features to build predictive models. All papers reported an AUC greater than 0.7, which indicates clinical utility. ML algorithms have the potential to predict postoperative outcomes of transsphenoidal surgery and can improve patient care. Ensemble algorithms and neural networks were often top performers when compared with other ML algorithms. Biochemical and preoperative features were most likely to be selected as important by ML models. Inexplicability remains a challenge, but algorithms such as local interpretable model–agnostic explanation or Shapley value can increase explainability of ML algorithms. Our analysis shows that ML algorithms have the potential to greatly assist surgeons in clinical decision making.

Paced reading in semantic dementia: Word knowledge contributes to phoneme binding in rapid speech production

Broadly speaking: Vocabulary in semantic dementia shifts towards general, semantically diverse words

BackgroundDespite the interest in machine learning (ML) algorithms for analyzing real-world data (RWD) in healthcare, the use of ML in predicting time-to-event data, a common scenario in clinical practice, is less explored. ML models are capable of algorithmically learning from large, complex datasets and can offer advantages in predicting time-to-event data. We reviewed the recent applications of ML for survival analysis using RWD in healthcare.MethodsPUBMED and EMBASE were searched from database inception through March 2023 to identify peer-reviewed English-language studies of ML models for predicting time-to-event outcomes using the RWD. Two reviewers extracted information on the data source, patient population, survival outcome, ML algorithms, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC).ResultsOf 257 citations, 28 publications were included. Random survival forests (N = 16, 57%) and neural networks (N = 11, 39%) were the most popular ML algorithms. There was variability across AUC for these ML models (median 0.789, range 0.6–0.950). ML algorithms were predominately considered for predicting overall survival in oncology (N = 12, 43%). ML survival models were often used to predict disease prognosis or clinical events (N = 27, 96%) in the oncology, while less were used for treatment outcomes (N = 1, 4%).ConclusionsThe ML algorithms, random survival forests and neural networks, are mainly used for RWD to predict survival outcomes such as disease prognosis or clinical events in the oncology. This review shows that more opportunities remain to apply these ML algorithms to inform treatment decision-making in clinical practice. More methodological work is also needed to ensure the utility and applicability of ML models in survival outcomes.