Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Diseases and Dementia from MRI Images Using an Ensemble Deep Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Averaging two compact CNNs classifies four stages of Alzheimer's from MRI at 98.28% accuracy, rising to 99.92% with oversampling.

desk verdict The 99.92% SMOTE accuracy is a training-set leak, not a real result; the paper's architecture work is competent but the evaluation invalidates the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05666 v1 pith:LBQDML5H submitted 2024-12-07 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

Mozhgan Naderi , Maryam Rastgarpour , Amir Reza Takhsha This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords Alzheimer'sdiseasedementiaMRIimagesconvolutionalneuralnetworkensemblelearningSMOTEtransferdeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that accurate four-class staging of Alzheimer's disease from brain MRI does not require large models: two deliberately compact convolutional networks, combined by averaging their probability outputs, reach 98.28% test accuracy on an imbalanced public dataset, and 99.92% after rebalancing the minority classes with the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), which creates new images by interpolating between existing ones. The authors argue this matters because many hospitals lack the GPU resources that heavy CNN architectures demand, so small models that still catch early stages of dementia — especially the tiny Moderate Demented class — could make automated screening practical. The central claim is that the average of two diverse low-parameter networks is more accurate than either network alone (Wilcoxon p-values of 2.9e-3 and 5.2e-6), and that the same ensemble beats earlier models on this dataset in both balanced and imbalanced settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the average operator $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{Output}_{CNN_i}$ applied to the two networks' Softmax vectors; averaging, the paper argues, reduces prediction variance across architecturally distinct CNNs and costs only linear time in the number of test images. The two members are IR-BRAINNET, a six-convolutional-layer network whose second layer is initialized with the weights of VGG-19's third convolutional layer, and Modified-DEMNET, which keeps DEMNET's convolutional blocks but replaces two max-pooling layers with average pooling and compresses the fully connected head to a single 100-neuron dense layer. SMOTE supplies the synthetic diversity: each new image is a convex combination of a minority-class sample and one of its chosen nearest neighbours, $x_{new}=x_i+\mathrm{rand}[0,1]\cdot(\hat{x}_{ij}-x_i)$, and the training pipeline then fine-tunes both networks with the Adam optimizer for 50 epochs.

What would settle it

Re-run the experiment with SMOTE applied only inside the training split — for example, generating synthetic instances within each fold of stratified cross-validation — and compare the ensemble's test accuracy with the reported 99.92%; a material drop would show the published SMOTE number was inflated by leakage. A complementary check is to record, for every SMOTE-scenario test image, the distance to its nearest training image: if many test samples sit at near-zero distance from training samples, they are essentially memorized rather than classified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's finding is empirical: averaging the final Softmax probability vectors of IR-BRAINNET (about 1.8 million parameters, with one convolutional layer initialized from pre-trained VGG-19 weights) and Modified-DEMNET (a slimmed-down DEMNET with mixed max and average pooling) yields a four-class dementia classifier that outperforms both constituent networks. In the imbalanced no-SMOTE scenario the ensemble scores 98.28% accuracy, 98.80% precision and 96.28% recall; after SMOTE balancing it scores 99.92% on all four metrics, including perfect precision and recall for the Moderate Demented minority class. The paper reads this as evidence that simple output averaging is an effective variance-reduction strategy for low-resource AD diagnosis, and that the synthetic diversity introduced by SMOTE is what carries performance above 99.9%.

Load-bearing premise

The SMOTE-scenario result rests on the assumption that the test set contains genuinely unseen data, but the paper's pipeline applies SMOTE to the whole dataset before the 70/10/20 split, so a synthetic test image can be a point interpolated between two training images; if that contamination is real, the reported 99.92% accuracy would not survive an honest train/test separation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A four-class AD staging system can run in about 14 MB of memory for the two networks combined, putting it within reach of hospital workstations and edge devices that cannot host heavy CNN backbones.
  • Simple averaging of Softmax outputs buys a statistically significant accuracy gain over both constituent networks, so ensembling low-parameter models is a cheap upgrade path for medical-image classifiers.
  • The Moderate Demented minority class, the one clinicians most need not to miss, is detected at 100% precision in both scenarios and at 92-100% recall, suggesting the pipeline is usable for early-intervention screening.
  • Rebalancing the public dataset with SMOTE adds roughly 1.6 percentage points of accuracy on top of the ensemble, indicating that class imbalance, not model capacity, is the dominant remaining source of error.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper applies SMOTE before the 70/10/20 split, some test images are synthetic points interpolated between training samples; if SMOTE is confined to the training fold, the 99.92% figure would likely fall, making the no-SMOTE 98.28% the more honest estimate of real-world accuracy.
  • The ensemble's gain presumably comes from the two networks making different errors; counting the test images on which IR-BRAINNET and Modified-DEMNET disagree, and verifying that the average resolves most of them, would test that mechanism directly.
  • The comparison against earlier models is made under different preprocessing, splitting and oversampling protocols, so a shared-protocol benchmark with identical folds and identical SMOTE handling could settle whether the compact ensemble genuinely beats heavier architectures.
  • The authors' stated plan to train the ensemble as a single network, or to replace averaging with fuzzy integrals, offers a direct way to test whether linear averaging is already close to the ceiling for these two backbones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two low-parameter convolutional neural networks, IR-BRAINNET and Modified-DEMNET, and an ensemble that averages their softmax outputs for four-class Alzheimer's disease staging on the Kaggle Alzheimer's MRI dataset. The authors report 98.28% accuracy without SMOTE and 99.92% accuracy with SMOTE for the ensemble, claiming improvements over both individual CNNs and prior work, and they report FLOPs, memory use, and training times to support practical deployment. The central claim is that averaging two compact CNNs yields state-of-the-art accuracy on this dataset in both balanced and imbalanced settings.

Significance. If the evaluation were valid, the contribution would be moderately significant for resource-constrained clinical imaging: the models are compact, the ensemble is simple, and the paper includes useful efficiency estimates. The manuscript also has transparency strengths, including explicit pseudocode, hyperparameters, per-class tables, learning curves, and confusion matrices. However, the main empirical claim is undermined by a methodological flaw in the evaluation protocol: synthetic SMOTE instances are generated before the train/test split, so the reported SMOTE-scenario accuracies do not measure generalization to unseen MRI scans. The NO-SMOTE results are additionally vulnerable to known duplicate-image issues in this dataset. Because the headline results cannot be interpreted as valid estimates, the significance of the contribution as submitted is low.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1, Eqs. (1)-(2)] SMOTE is applied before the train/validation/test split: Algorithm 1 line 4 computes XSMOTE, YSMOTE from all Images and Labels, and line 5 then splits X and Y. Equation (2) defines each synthetic instance as a convex combination of an existing minority sample and one of its nearest neighbors, so the test partition can contain synthetic images generated from training images, and original test images can have served as neighbors for synthetic training instances. The test set is therefore not independent of the training set. All SMOTE-scenario metrics in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 5, including the headline 99.92% accuracy, are optimistically biased and cannot be interpreted as performance on unseen MRI scans. To support the claims, the authors would need to fit SMOTE on the training partition only and keep the test set entirely original.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 1] SMOTE is applied to image data as flat feature vectors, and Eqs. (1)-(2) generate new instances by pixel-wise linear interpolation between MRI scans. Such interpolations are not anatomically valid MRI images. As implemented, the test set contains these synthetic images, so the reported accuracy reflects the model's ability to classify interpolated pixel vectors at least as much as real clinical scans. Even if the split were corrected, the use of SMOTE as a data-generation method for MRI should be justified with evidence that the synthetic images are plausible, rather than assumed from accuracy improvements on a contaminated test set.
  3. [Section 3.2, Section 4.4, Table 2] The Kaggle Alzheimer's dataset is known to contain duplicate and near-duplicate images, and the paper does not report any deduplication or subject-level partitioning. The NO-SMOTE results, including the ensemble's 98.28% accuracy in Table 2 and the per-class results in Table 3, are therefore also at risk of inflation from training/test overlap of identical or near-identical images. The authors should demonstrate that no patient or image-level overlap exists between the training and test partitions before the NO-SMOTE generalization claim can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, Fig. 6 reference] The text says "Fig. 8 illustrates the ROC curves," but the figure is numbered Fig. 6; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2, Table 3, and abstract] Reported values are inconsistent across the abstract, text, and tables: the abstract and text give e.g. 99.80%, 99.72%, and 99.92%, while Table 2 shows rounded values of 0.99, and Table 3's values are rounded to two decimals. Exact metrics should be reported consistently.
  3. [Section 4.4, Table 3 discussion] The text states a MOD recall of 92.30% in the NO-SMOTE scenario, but Table 3 shows 0.92; the text also cites a precision of 98.84% for MildDemented while Table 3 shows 0.98. The text should be aligned with the table.
  4. [Table 4] The training-set sizes stated in the text (4,608 images for NO-SMOTE and 9,216 for SMOTE) are inconsistent with the stated 70/10/20 split of 6,400 and 12,800 total images, which would yield 4,480 and 8,960 training images. This discrepancy should be explained or corrected.
  5. [Algorithm 1, Table 5, and Fig. 3 caption] There are several typos: "Preprcoess" in Algorithm 1 line 5, "Psuedo-Algorithm" in the algorithm title, "DEMENT" in Table 5, and "Modified-DEMENT" in the Fig. 3 discussion. These should be corrected to "DEMNET."

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

SMOTE-before-split makes the 99.92% SMOTE result self-referential, but the main ensemble comparison has independent support.

  1. other [Section 3.3, Eqs. (1)–(2); Algorithm 1 (Section 3.7), lines 4–5; Table 2]
    "XSMOTE, YSMOTE ← SMOTE(Images, Labels) ... XTrain, YTrain, XVal, YVal, XTest, YTest ← split(X,Y) ... (2) 𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑥𝑖 + 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑[0 − 1] × 𝛥"

    SMOTE is applied to the entire image set before the training/validation/test split. Each synthetic image is a convex combination (Eq. 2) of an existing image and one of its k-nearest neighbours. Since neighbours are computed over all images, synthetic test instances can be interpolations of training instances, or original images used as neighbours to generate synthetic training instances. The test set is therefore not independent of the training set by construction, so the SMOTE-scenario accuracy (99.92%, Table 2; comparisons in Table 5) measures performance on points on the training manifold rather than generalization to unseen MRI scans.

full rationale

Most of the paper is an empirical comparison with no derivation chain: two CNNs are trained with standard losses, and the ensemble averages their softmax outputs. There is no load-bearing self-citation and no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction. The one self-referential element is the SMOTE scenario, where Algorithm 1 applies SMOTE before the split, allowing synthetic test images to be generated from training images; this invalidates the 99.92% generalization estimate but is a data-leakage/correctness concern rather than a reduction of the central ensemble claim to its inputs. The NO-SMOTE ensemble result (98.28%) and the ensemble-vs-individual comparison are independent of this step, so the paper retains substantial non-circular content. Overall circularity is minor.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on dataset assumptions and a flawed SMOTE-before-split protocol. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. Hyperparameters are hand-chosen but not fitted to a theoretical derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • SMOTE random seed = 42
    Set for reproducibility in Section 3.3; determines which synthetic instances are generated and affects all SMOTE-scenario results.
  • Initial learning rate = 0.0001
    Hand-chosen for Adam optimizer in Section 4.2; affects convergence and final accuracy.
  • Number of training epochs = 50
    Training duration specified in Algorithm 1 and Section 4.2; influences final model weights and reported metrics.
  • Batch size = 32
    Used for training and timing in Section 4.4 and Table 4; affects optimization dynamics and measured times.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kaggle Alzheimer's dataset labels are correct and the images represent the four dementia stages.
    The entire evaluation treats dataset labels as ground truth; stated in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper SMOTE-generated pixel-space interpolations of MRI images are valid training samples that improve generalization.
    The paper assumes synthetic images created by Eq. 1-2 preserve class-relevant features; this is not validated and is questionable for raw pixels.
  • domain assumption Random 70/10/20 split without duplicate removal prevents data leakage between train and test.
    The paper does not check for duplicate images in this dataset, which is known to contain duplicates; Section 3.3 describes the split.
  • domain assumption Transfer learning from ImageNet-trained VGG-19 improves IR-BRAINNET on MRI images.
    Section 3.4 assumes early-layer features transfer across domains, but no comparison to random initialization is shown.
  • standard math Averaging softmax outputs of two CNNs reduces variance and improves accuracy.
    Ensemble averaging is a standard technique, but the specific improvement is measured, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Diseases and Dementia from MRI Images Using an Ensemble Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LBQDML5H

@misc{pith2026241205666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Diseases and Dementia from MRI Images Using an Ensemble Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LBQDML5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05666}
}
read the original abstract

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurological disorder that can result in significant cognitive impairment and dementia. Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential for effective treatment and management of this disease. In this study, we proposed two low-parameter Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), IR-BRAINNET and Modified-DEMNET, designed to detect the early stages of AD accurately. We also introduced an ensemble model that averages their outputs to reduce variance across the CNNs and enhance AD detection. Both CNNs are trained, and all models are evaluated using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) dataset from the Kaggle database. The dataset includes images of four stages of dementia, with an uneven class distribution. To mitigate challenges stemming from the inherent imbalance in the dataset, we employed the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) to generate additional instances for minority classes. In the NO-SMOTE scenario, despite the imbalanced distribution, the ensemble model achieved 98.28% accuracy, outperforming IR-BRAINNET (97.26%) and Modified-DEMNET (95.54%), with Wilcoxon p-values of 2.9e-3 and 5.20e-6, respectively, indicating significant improvement in correct predictions through the use of the average function. In the SMOTE scenario, the ensemble model achieved 99.92% accuracy (1.64% improvement over NO-SMOTE), IR-BRAINNET reached 99.80% (2.54% improvement), and Modified-DEMNET attained 99.72% (4.18% improvement). Based on the experimental findings, averaging the models' outputs enhanced AD diagnosis in both scenarios, while the diversity in the dataset introduced by SMOTE-generated instances significantly improved performance. Furthermore, the compact models we proposed outperformed those from previous studies, even in the presence of an imbalanced distribution.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Biomedicines 11: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11092394

    Suzanne M, Tong M, Hapel AJ (2023) Concordant and Discordant Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Cytokine and Chemokine Responses in Mild Cognitive Impairment and EarlyStage Alzheimer’s Disease. Biomedicines 11: https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11092394

    work page doi:10.3390/biomedicines11092394 2023

  2. [2]

    The Lancet Public Health 7: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00249-8

    GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators (2022) Estimation of the Global Prevalence of Dementia in 2019 and Forecasted Prevalence in 2050: an Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health 7: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00249-8

    doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00249-8 2022

  3. [3]

    In: World Health Organization

    World Health Organization (2023) Dementia. In: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/dementia

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 14: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.937486

    Li X, Feng X, Sun X, et al (2022) Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, 1990–2019. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 14: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.937486

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Neurology 80:1778–1783

    Hebert LE, Weuve J, Scherr PA, Evans DA (2013) Alzheimer disease in the United States (2010–2050) estimated using the 2010 census. Neurology 80:1778–1783. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828726f5

    work page doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e31828726f5 2013

  6. [6]

    Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics 7:1 –5

    Choi YJ, Won CW, Kim S, et al (2016) Five items differentiate mild to severe dementia from normal to minimal cognitive impairment—Using the Global Deterioration Scale. Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics 7:1 –5. 18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcgg.2015.05.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcgg.2015.05.004 2016

  7. [7]

    IEEE Access 9:90319–90329

    Murugan S, Venkatesan C, Sumithra MG, et al (2021) DEMNET: A Deep Learning Model for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer Diseases and Dementia From MR Images. IEEE Access 9:90319–90329. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3090474

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    In: geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu

    Geriatric Assessment Tool Kit. In: geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu. https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/cog

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Neurology 266:1293–1302

    Chandra A, Dervenoulas G, Politis M, for (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology 266:1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0041501890163

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Mdpi 13:1216–1216

    Abd AA, Samia Allaoua Chelloug, Maali Alabdulhafith, Hammad M (2023) Accurate Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Lightweight Deep Learning Model on MRI Data. Mdpi 13:1216–1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071216

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Electronics 10:2860

    Mohammed BA, Senan EM, Rassem TH, et al (2021) Multi -Method Analysis of Medical Records and MRI Images for Early Diagnosis of Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Deep Learning and Hybrid Methods. Electronics 10:2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10222860

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Journal of Process Control 84:24 –34

    Maggipinto M, Beghi A, McLoone S, Susto, Gian Antonio (2019) DeepVM: A Deep Learningbased approach with automatic feature extraction for 2D input data Virtual Metrology. Journal of Process Control 84:24 –34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2019.08.006

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering 3:1–8

    Gao S, Lima D (2022) A review of the application of deep learning in the detection of Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering 3:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcce.2021.12.002

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    EClinicalMedicine 64:102247–102247

    Fan Y, Zhang Y, Yuan J, et al (2023) Identifying underlying patterns in Alzheimer’s disease trajectory: a deep learning approach and Mendelian randomization analysis. EClinicalMedicine 64:102247–102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102247

    2023

  7. [15]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 83:3767–3799

    Arafa DA, Moustafa HE, Ali HA, et al (2024) A deep learning framework for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease on MRI images. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83:3767–3799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042023157387

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Diagnostics 13:2489–2489

    Mujahid M, Rehman A, Alam T, et al (2023) An Efficient Ensemble Approach for Alzheimer’s Disease Detection Using an Adaptive Synthetic Technique and Deep Learning. Diagnostics 13:2489–2489. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13152489

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Journal of Medical Imaging 8: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.8.2.024503

    Ebrahimi A, Luo S, Disease Neuroimaging Initiative for the A (2021) Convolutional neural networks for Alzheimer’s disease detection on MRI images. Journal of Medical Imaging 8: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.8.2.024503

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Alexandria Engineering Journal 63:211–221

    ELGeneedy M, Moustafa HE, Khalifa F, et al (2023) An MRIbased deep learning approach for accurate detection of Alzheimer’s disease. Alexandria Engineering Journal 63:211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.07.062

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10:985688

    Lu Y, Huo Y, Yang Z, et al (2022) Influence of the parameters of the convolutional neural network model in predicting the effective compressive modulus of porous structure. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10:985688. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.985688

    2022

  12. [20]

    arXiv (Cornell University)

    Dinh B-D, Nguyen T-T, Tran T-T, Pham V-T (2023) 1M parameters are enough? A lightweight CNN-based model for medical image segmentation. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2306.16103

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: arXiv.org

    Shi C, Rezai R, Yang J, et al (2024) A Survey on Trustworthiness in Foundation Models for Medical Image Analysis. In: arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15851. Accessed 23 Aug 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Medical Hypotheses 140:109761

    Ucar F, Korkmaz D (2020) COVIDiagnosis -Net: Deep Bayes -SqueezeNet based diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from X-ray images. Medical Hypotheses 140:109761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109761

    2020

  15. [23]

    Journal of Biomedical Informatics 105:103411

    An N, Ding H, Yang J, et al (2020) Deep ensemble learning for Alzheimer’s disease classification. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 105:103411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103411

    2020

  16. [24]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 115:105151

    Ganaie MA, Hu M, Malik AK, et al (2022) Ensemble deep learning: A review. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 115:105151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105151

    2022

  17. [25]

    Neural Computing and Applications 31:3469–3479

    Becherer N, Pecarina J, Nykl S, Hopkinson K (2017) Improving optimization of convolutional neural networks through parameter fine-tuning. Neural Computing and Applications 31:3469–3479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3285-0

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Deng J, Dong W, Socher R, et al (2009) ImageNet: A largescale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 248–255

    2009

  19. [27]

    In: www.kaggle.com

    Alzheimer’s Dataset ( 4 class of Images). In: www.kaggle.com. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/tourist55/alzheimers-dataset- 4-class-of-images

  20. [28]

    Journal of Big Data 6: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0192-5

    Johnson JM, Khoshgoftaar TM (2019) Survey on deep learning with class imbalance. Journal of Big Data 6: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0192-5

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Information Sciences 505:32–64

    Elreedy D, Atiya AF (2019) A Comprehensive Analysis of Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) for handling class imbalance. Information Sciences 505:32–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.07.070

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    IEEE Access 10:30655–30665

    Sharma A, Singh PK, Chandra R (2022) SMOTifiedGAN for Class Imbalanced Pattern Classification Problems. IEEE Access 10:30655–30665. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3158977

    2022

  23. [31]

    Zikria, Ahmed G, et al (2022) ADDNet: An Effective Deep Learning Model for Early Detection of Alzheimer Disease in MRI Scans

    Fareed S, S. Zikria, Ahmed G, et al (2022) ADDNet: An Effective Deep Learning Model for Early Detection of Alzheimer Disease in MRI Scans. IEEE Access 10:96930–96951. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3204395

    2022

  24. [32]

    Neuroinformatics 22: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09646-2

    Fathi S, Ahmadi A, Afsaneh Dehnad, et al (2023) A Deep Learning -Based Ensemble Method for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease using MRI Images. Neuroinformatics 22: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09646-2

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Neuroscience 460:43–52

    Mehmood A, Yang S, Feng Z, et al (2021) A Transfer Learning Approach for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease on MRI Images. Neuroscience 460:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.01.002

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Cognitive Computation

    Helaly HA, Badawy M, Haikal AY (2021) Deep Learning Approach for Early Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease. Cognitive Computation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09946-2

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 80:35789–35807

    Nawaz H, Maqsood M, Afzal S, et al (2020) A deep feature -based real-time system for Alzheimer disease stage detection. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80:35789–35807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09087-y

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 27:1205–1213

    Rashid AH, Gupta A, Gupta J, Tanveer M () BicephNet: A Robust and Lightweight Framework for the Diagnosis of 19 Alzheimer’s Disease Using 2DMRI Scans and Deep Similarity Learning. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 27:1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3174033

  29. [37]

    Mohana Roopa, B

    Y. Mohana Roopa, B. Bhaskar Reddy, Meenigi Ramesh Babu, R. Krishna Nayak (2023) Teaching learning -based brain storm optimization tuned Deep -CNN for Alzheimer’s disease classification. Multimedia Tools and Applications 82:33333 –33356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-14815-1

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53733-6

    El -Assy AM, Amer HM, Ibrahim HM, Mohamed MA (2024) A novel CNN architecture for accurate early detection and classification of Alzheimer’s disease using MRI data. Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53733-6

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Abd, Albarrak, Khalied M, et al (2024) Classification of Alzheimer’s disease using MRI data based on Deep Learning Techniques

    Sorour, Shaymaa E, ElMageed, Amr A. Abd, Albarrak, Khalied M, et al (2024) Classification of Alzheimer’s disease using MRI data based on Deep Learning Techniques. Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences 36:101940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.101940

    2024

  32. [40]

    Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60611-8

    Odimayo S, Olisah CC, Mohammed K (2024) Structure focused neurodegeneration convolutional neural network for modeling and classification of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60611-8

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66314-4

    Sekaran C, Clement JC (2024) Enhancing brain tumor segmentation in MRI images using the IC -net algorithm framework. Scientific Reports 14: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66314-4

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Neuroscience Letters 782:136673

    Hu Y, Wen C, Cao G, et al (2022) Brain network connectivity feature extraction using deep learning for Alzheimer’s diseas e classification. Neuroscience Letters 782:136673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136673

    2022

  35. [43]

    International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR)

    Pack C, Soh L-K, Lorang E (2023) Perceptual cue-guided adaptive image downscaling for enhanced semantic segmentation on large document images. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10032- 023-00454-7

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Materials & Design 232:112086

    Pei X, Zhao Y hong, Chen L, et al (2023) Robustness of machine learning to color, size change, normalization, and image enhancement on micrograph datasets with large sample differences. Materials & Design 232:112086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112086

    2023

  37. [45]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26:1019–1034

    Shao L, Zhu F, Li X () Transfer Learning for Visual Categorization: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26:1019–1034. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2014.2330900

    2014

  38. [46]

    Neural Computing and Applications

    Nirthika R, Manivannan S, Ramanan A, Wang R (2022) Pooling in convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis: a survey and an empirical study. Neural Computing and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-06953-8

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    D. Jaipriya, Sriharipriya KC (2023) Brain Computer Interface-Based Signal Processing Techniques for Feature Extraction and Classification of Motor Imagery Using EEG: A Literature Review. Biomedical Materials & Devices. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44174-023-00082-z

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 37:6823–6833

    Bingham G, Miikkulainen R (2023) AutoInit: Analytic Signal -Preserving Weight Initialization for Neural Networks. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 37:6823–6833. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i6.25836

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    arXiv (Cornell University)

    He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2015) Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human -Level Performance on ImageNet Classification. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1502.01852

    2015 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    In: Google.com

    Google (2019) Google Colaboratory. In: Google.com. https://colab.research.google.com/

    2019

  43. [51]

    International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00518-4

    Geng L, Niu B (2024) APSSF: Adaptive CNN Pruning Based on Structural Similarity of Filters. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00518-4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.