Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Demographic details of all participants of two cohorts in this study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Descriptions of the proposed framework in this study.

Block (a) presents the 3-D feature measure extractions from preprocessed fMRI scans. Block (b) describes the LOO-CV and 10-fold-CV cross validation for ADNI2 and in-house cohorts, respectively. Block (c) presents the multivariate feature reduction techniques using LASSO and SVM-RFE. The combined univariate t-test and multivariate LASSO as well as SVM-RFE informative features are trained by ELM and SVM classifiers as illustrated in block (d). Finally, the trained classifiers and testing features are used to evaluate the performance as in block (e).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 2.

Detailed information of the seeds for seed-based rsFC measures.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

An example of one-fold univariate statistical two-sample t-test on ReHo maps between two training analytical groups, i.e., AD against CN (left subfigure) and MCI against CN (right subfigure). The threshold was set to p-value<0.05 with cluster size of 85 voxels (2295 mm3), which corresponded to a corrected p-value<0.05. The t-test maps are overlaid on the anatomical image. The hot and cold colours represent positive and negative changes.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Illustration of the hybrid combination of univariate t-test and MVPA feature reduction techniques (SVM-RFE and LASSO) on the 3-D cross-validated fMRI measures.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

An example of cross-validated MSE of LASSO fit with a parameter lambda (λ).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Leave-One-Out cross-validation mean classification performance for AD versus CN of multi-measure features at p-value = 0.05 with ADNI2 cohort.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Leave-One-Out cross-validation mean classification performance for MCI against CN of multi-functional features at p-value = 0.05 with ADNI2 cohort.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

10-fold cross-validation mean classification performance for AD against CN of multi-functional features at p-value = 0.05 with In-house cohort.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

10-fold cross-validation mean classification performance for MCI against CN of multi-functional features at p-value = 0.05 with In-house cohort.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

The effects of significant p-values on the classification performances reported with ADNI2 and in-house cohorts.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

The effects of multivariate feature optimization methods (LASSO and SVM-RFE) on the ELM classification performances reported with ADNI2 and in-house cohorts.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Comparison of classification accuracy of AD/MCI subjects with state-of-the-art methods using rs-fMRI.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Comparison of classification performances of AD/MCI patients on ADNI cohort with hybrid MVPA feature selections.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Fig 5.

Univariate t-statistical difference maps between AD and CN groups of ten measures extracted from in-house cohort.

Voxels with p-value<0.05 and cluster size of 85 voxels (2295 mm3) corresponding to a corrected p-value<0.05 were used to identify the significant clusters. Hot and cold colours indicate AD-related measures increases and decreases, respectively.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Univariate t-statistical difference maps between MCI and CN groups of ten measures extracted from in-house cohort.

Voxels with p-value<0.05 and cluster size of 85 voxels (2295 mm3) corresponding to a corrected p-value<0.05 were used to identify the significant clusters. Hot and cold colours indicate MCI-related measures increases and decreases, respectively.

More »

Fig 6 Expand