Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 30 references

Diffusion with a Linguistic Compass: Steering the Generation of Clinically Plausible Future sMRI Representations for Early MCI Conversion Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion model that generates future brain representations from a single baseline scan predicts early MCI conversion with superior accuracy.

desk verdict A novel diffusion-plus-LLM pipeline for MCI conversion from a single baseline scan, but the clinical-plausibility claim is unvalidated and the reported gains lack statistics and code. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05428 v1 pith:5W75EKZN submitted 2025-06-05 cs.LG cs.AI

Zhihao Tang , Chaozhuo Li , Litian Zhang , Xi Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords mildcognitiveimpairmentMCIconversionpredictiondiffusionmodelsMRIlongitudinalimagingLLM-guidedsamplingclinicalplausibilityAlzheimer'sdisease
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

This paper tries to break the long-standing trade-off in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) prognosis between making fast predictions from a single baseline brain scan and making accurate predictions by waiting for longitudinal follow-up scans. The proposed framework, MCI-Diff, synthesizes plausible future sMRI feature representations directly from the baseline scan, then feeds them to a classifier, so that a clinician can get longitudinal-grade prediction at the moment of the first scan. On ADNI and AIBL data, the authors report accuracy of 0.950 and 0.936 respectively, beating eight baselines by 5 to 12 percent. The core claim is that generation of future representations, steered by a language-model-based clinical plausibility scorer, can replace actually waiting for future scans.

What carries the argument

The central object is MCI-Diff, a conditional denoising diffusion probabilistic model whose denoiser takes masked sMRI feature representations, positional embeddings, and mask embeddings as conditions, and predicts the feature at a target timepoint. Its two load-bearing mechanisms are multi-task sequence reconstruction training (interpolation and extrapolation, progressively augmented with self-imputed data) and LLM-driven clinical plausibility sampling: generated feature candidates are quantized and tokenized, the fine-tuned LLM predicts FreeSurfer volumetric and thickness measurements from them, and the candidate whose measurements are most plausible relative to expected MCI progression is selected for the next autoregressive step. This selection loop is what the paper calls the linguistic compass, and it is the component that prevents error compounding in sequential generation.

What would settle it

On the held-out test set, compute the correlation between the LLM's predicted FreeSurfer volumes and the true FreeSurfer volumes from the follow-up scans; if the correlation is near zero, the linguistic compass is not measuring anything clinically real, and a control condition that randomly picks among the N candidates should recover the reported accuracy if the LLM is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MCI-Diff, by autoregressively generating clinically plausible future sMRI feature representations from a single baseline scan, achieves both high prediction immediacy and accuracy that rivals or exceeds longitudinal models. The method trains a shared denoising diffusion network on both interpolation and extrapolation tasks to handle irregular follow-up sampling, and then uses a fine-tuned LLM to score candidate generated features by their predicted FreeSurfer structural measurements against expected MCI progression. The best-scoring candidate is selected at each autoregressive step, acting as a "linguistic compass" that steers generation toward realistic disease trajectories. On the ADNI and AIBL cohorts the full model reaches ACC of 0.950 and 0.936, outperforming cross-sectional, longitudinal, and generative baselines, with the ablation showing that removing LLM guidance drops ADNI accuracy from 0.950 to 0.870.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gain from LLM guidance rests on the fine-tuned language model's plausibility ratings actually tracking clinical realism; if those ratings are noisy or biased, the accuracy advantage would shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early MCI conversion can be predicted from a single baseline sMRI with accuracy on par with or better than models that require 6-36 months of follow-up scans.
  • The 5-12% improvement over eight baselines on ADNI and AIBL indicates the approach generalizes across cohorts, scanners, and imaging protocols.
  • Removing the LLM guidance drops ADNI accuracy from 0.950 to 0.870, so the language-model plausibility scorer is a major contributor, not a minor add-on.
  • Multi-task interpolation and extrapolation training makes the model robust to missing follow-up visits, which are common in real longitudinal studies.
  • Generating future representations from baseline data is a viable alternative to collecting additional scans for prognosis, shortening the time to actionable prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the LLM's plausibility ratings are the true driver of the gain, a much smaller regression model trained directly on the same FreeSurfer targets might match the performance at a fraction of the compute; the paper does not test this.
  • The framework should transfer naturally to other progressive neurological conditions with serial imaging, provided a structural-biomarker prior similar to FreeSurfer exists for that disease.
  • A direct clinical extension the paper does not simulate is triaging MCI patients at baseline for trial enrichment, where the 95% accuracy would need to be weighed against the cost of false positives and negatives in real decision-making.
  • A testable stress test is to swap the fixed feature extractor (HFCN) for a different pretrained encoder and check whether the reported margin over baselines persists, since the quality of the feature space may be partly responsible for the gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 9 minor

Summary. MCI-Diff is a diffusion-based framework that generates latent-space representations of future sMRI scans (6-36 months) from a single baseline scan, with the goal of early prediction of MCI-to-AD conversion. The method combines two ideas: (i) a multi-task sequence reconstruction training scheme in which a shared denoising network learns interpolation and extrapolation tasks under a progressive difficulty schedule to handle irregular follow-up sampling, and (ii) an LLM-driven 'clinical plausibility sampling' loop in which candidate future feature vectors are quantized, tokenized, and scored by a fine-tuned language model that predicts FreeSurfer-type structural measurements, with the most plausible candidate selected at each autoregressive step. A downstream classifier is then applied to baseline plus generated features to predict pMCI versus sMCI. Evaluations on ADNI (trained on ADNI-1, tested on ADNI-2) and AIBL report ACC of 0.950 and 0.936, respectively, and the abstract claims a 5-12% improvement over state-of-the-art baselines.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine and clearly framed trade-off between prediction immediacy and accuracy, and the central idea of using a language model as a scorer of clinical plausibility for generated imaging features is novel and potentially influential if validated. The multi-task interpolation/extrapolation schedule is a sensible response to irregular longitudinal sampling, and the authors deserve credit for evaluating on two independent cohorts and for reporting component ablations. It should also be acknowledged that the accuracy evaluation uses external conversion labels, so the main result is not definitionally circular; the concerns below are evidential rather than definitional. However, significance is conditional on three unmet supports: statistical grounding of the headline numbers (no error bars or significance tests, hyperparameters selected on the test set), validation of the LLM plausibility scorer against real follow-up anatomy, and a complete specification of the prediction pipeline. Until these are supplied, the central claims of clinical plausibility and of a 5-12% improvement are not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.2 / Algorithm 2] The selection rule in §3.2.2 ('the candidate with the most clinically plausible measurements (compared to expected values)') is not operationalized anywhere in the paper. Algorithm 2 calls PlausibilityScore but never specifies how the score is computed, and the 'expected values' of structural biomarkers are never defined. The manuscript also reports no accuracy for the LLM's FreeSurfer-prediction task, so there is no evidence that the LLM's ratings are informative; the only support for the central 'clinically plausible' claim is the qualitative case study in §4.5, which provides no quantitative metric. This matters because the w/o LLM-Guidance ablation (§4.3, Table 3) drops ADNI ACC from 0.950 to 0.870, so most of the reported gain is carried by this unvalidated selector. Please (a) define how the expected values are obtained, (b) report the LLM's prediction quality on a held-out set, and (c) validate the selected candidates against actual follow-up data, for example by computing distances between generated and real follow-up features or between LLM-predicted and real follow-up FreeSurfer measurements.
  2. [§4.4 / Tables 2-3] The hyperparameters T=40, Dmax=4, and N=20 are chosen from Fig. 4, which plots accuracy on the ADNI test set (ADNI-2, under the protocol described in §4.1); no validation split is mentioned. The reported test ACC of 0.950 is therefore an in-sample optimized number. In addition, Tables 2 and 3 report single numbers with no error bars, no number of random seeds, and no significance tests, and the AIBL cohort contains only 17 pMCI subjects, so the AIBL sensitivity of 0.882 rests on very few positive cases. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple runs, apply significance testing, and either tune hyperparameters on a validation split or explicitly state that the reported test-set figures are optimistic bounds from test-set selection.
  3. [Table 2 / §4.2 / Abstract] The improvement statistics are inconsistent across the abstract, §4.2, and Table 2. The 'Improvement (%)' row of Table 2 mixes reference baselines: most entries are percentage-point gains over the best baseline (e.g., ADNI ACC 0.950 vs HFCN+ 0.899 = +5.1), but the AIBL AUC entry (+9.6) is computed against VGG-TS (0.914 vs 0.818), while the best baseline AUC (HFCN+, 0.853) would give only +6.1 percentage points. The abstract and conclusion claim a 5-12% improvement in 'early conversion accuracy', but the ACC columns support at most about a 7% relative improvement (AIBL: 0.936 vs 0.873); the 'up to 12%' figure comes from the AUC column and from §4.2's relative-improvement wording ('5.8-11.7%'), which uses a different definition than the table. Please adopt one metric convention and one reference baseline throughout and adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  4. [§2.2 / §4.1] The prediction model behind Eq. (3) is never specified. The paper does not describe the classifier used to compute P r(Y | φ(X_0), {Ẑ}): its architecture, how it is trained, whether it uses real, generated, or combined features, or how it handles the two datasets. Furthermore, §4.1 states that 'specific implementation details such as batch sizes, diffusion steps, and hardware configurations will be provided in the Appendix', but the manuscript contains no appendix, and no code is released; details such as the base LLM, the quantization and tokenization scheme, and the adapter are absent. The central numerical results are therefore not reproducible from the manuscript as it stands.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§4.3] The heading 'Abalation Study' should read 'Ablation Study'.
  2. [§3.1.1] Equation (6) writes the loss with ε_θ(x_t, T_i, t) and omits the condition C, whereas Eqs. (5) and (7) include C; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [§2.2] In Eq. (2), the noise variables z_0 and z_τ are introduced without explanation and are indexed differently from the diffusion step t used in Eqs. (4)-(6).
  4. [References] References [26] and [27] are the same paper (Thompson et al., NeuroImage, 2005); one should be removed.
  5. [§1] The citation '[29, 1]' for the ADNI dataset is incorrect: [29] is the Transformer paper and [1] is an MCI transfer-learning paper; neither is the ADNI data reference.
  6. [§4.1 / Table 2] Table 2 lists VAE as a generative baseline, but the baselines paragraph in §4.1 does not mention VAE.
  7. [Fig. 4] The horizontal axis label in Fig. 4(c) contains a typo ('Candiddate Set Size').
  8. [§2.1 / §4.4] The symbol T denotes both the set of follow-up time points in §2.1 and the number of diffusion steps in §4.4; please disambiguate.
  9. [§4.5] Because Fig. 5 is the only direct visual evidence for alignment with the real data distribution, please add a quantitative distance or similarity metric to support the qualitative claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The LLM 'clinical plausibility' selector is a fitted scorer used as if it were an external ground truth, so the 'clinically plausible future representation' claim partially reduces to matching training-data biomarker statistics.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.1–3.2.2, Algorithm 2, Fig. 3]
    "we create a specialized dataset of paired tokenized sMRI features and their corresponding structural measurements, both extracted from the same set of sMRI scans within our training data. We then fine-tune the LLM using this dataset... The candidate with the most clinically plausible measurements (compared to expected values) is selected as \\hat{Z}^{(p)}_{\tau} for the next step τ +1."

    The 'clinical plausibility' criterion is not an external ground truth; it is operationalized as the output of an LLM that was instruction-tuned on the same training scans to map tokenized sMRI features to FreeSurfer measurements. At inference, Algorithm 2 selects the candidate maximizing this fitted score, so 'clinically plausible' effectively means 'closest to the training-distribution feature-to-biomarker mapping / expected values.' The paper reports no FreeSurfer-prediction accuracy and no comparison of selected candidates to actual follow-up scans; the observed gain from LLM guidance (ADNI ACC 0.950 vs 0.870 without it) therefore shows only that a fitted selector changes results, not that it measures clinical plausibility.

full rationale

The main classification result is not definitionally circular: accuracy is evaluated against external pMCI/sMCI labels on held-out ADNI-2 and AIBL data, and the diffusion model's reconstruction targets are real observed sMRI features. However, the paper's central claim that MCI-Diff generates 'clinically plausible future sMRI representations' rests on the LLM-driven plausibility selector in Section 3.2. That selector is an LLM fine-tuned on paired tokenized sMRI features and FreeSurfer measurements drawn from the same training scans, and the selection rule is 'most clinically plausible measurements (compared to expected values).' Since no independent clinical validation, FreeSurfer-prediction accuracy, or quantitative comparison with real follow-up scans is provided, the plausibility score is a fitted model output rather than an external criterion. The ablation shows the component changes accuracy, but not that it provides clinical plausibility; a shrinkage-to-mean regularizer could produce a similar gain. No self-citation chain or uniqueness-importation pattern is present. The circularity is partial and localized to the clinical-plausibility claim, not to the externally evaluated conversion-prediction accuracy.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The list includes the main free parameters chosen by the authors and the domain assumptions that must hold for the reported gains to transfer. No new physical entities are introduced; the linguistic compass is a metaphorical name for the LLM scorer, which is a software component rather than a postulated entity.

free parameters (3)
  • Diffusion time steps T = 40
    Selected based on ADNI test accuracy in Fig. 4a; performance peaks around T=40.
  • Termination difficulty Dmax = 4
    Selected based on ADNI test accuracy in Fig. 4b; highest accuracy at d=4.
  • Candidate set size N = 20
    Selected based on ADNI test accuracy in Fig. 4c; gains flatten after N=20.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The pretrained HFCN feature extractor produces latent representations that preserve clinically relevant longitudinal changes.
    The whole pipeline operates on HFCN features; if the extractor discards progression-related signal, the generative model cannot recover it. Invoked in Sec. 2.2 and 4.1.
  • domain assumption FreeSurfer measurements (hippocampus, entorhinal, ventricle, cortical thickness) are valid proxies for MCI progression plausibility.
    The LLM is fine-tuned to predict these measurements and the sampling loop selects candidates based on them (Sec. 3.2).
  • domain assumption The instruction-tuned LLM can reliably map tokenized HFCN features to FreeSurfer measurements and judge plausibility.
    No evaluation of LLM prediction accuracy is reported; the paper only shows the instruction template (Fig. 3).
  • ad hoc to paper Expected values for probing MCI progression are available or well-defined.
    Algorithm 2 scores candidates against expected values, but the source and definition of these values are not specified.
  • domain assumption ADNI-1 training and ADNI-2/AIBL testing provides an unbiased generalization estimate.
    This is a standard protocol, but no external validation or cross-validation is used, and hyperparameters are tuned on the ADNI test set.
  • domain assumption Diffusion denoising on low-dimensional features with positional and mask embeddings can model temporal sMRI trajectories.
    Core modeling assumption of Sec. 3.1; no comparison with a simpler non-generative trajectory model is provided.
  • standard math The standard DDPM forward and reverse processes described in Eqs. 4-6 hold for the feature space.
    The paper cites Ho et al. and uses the standard L2 noise-prediction objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion with a Linguistic Compass: Steering the Generation of Clinically Plausible Future sMRI Representations for Early MCI Conversion Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5W75EKZN

@misc{pith2026250605428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion with a Linguistic Compass: Steering the Generation of Clinically Plausible Future sMRI Representations for Early MCI Conversion Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5W75EKZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05428}
}
read the original abstract

Early prediction of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) conversion is hampered by a trade-off between immediacy--making fast predictions from a single baseline sMRI--and accuracy--leveraging longitudinal scans to capture disease progression. We propose MCI-Diff, a diffusion-based framework that synthesizes clinically plausible future sMRI representations directly from baseline data, achieving both real-time risk assessment and high predictive performance. First, a multi-task sequence reconstruction strategy trains a shared denoising network on interpolation and extrapolation tasks to handle irregular follow-up sampling and learn robust latent trajectories. Second, an LLM-driven "linguistic compass" is introduced for clinical plausibility sampling: generated feature candidates are quantized, tokenized, and scored by a fine-tuned language model conditioned on expected structural biomarkers, guiding autoregressive generation toward realistic disease patterns. Experiments on ADNI and AIBL cohorts show that MCI-Diff outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, improving early conversion accuracy by 5-12%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of MCI Conversion Prediction Models and Performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our MCI-Diff Framework. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of an Instruction Template for structural Measurement Prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hyperparameter sensitivity results on ADNI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Autoregressive generation of future MRI features over four steps, with and without LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-auxiliary domain transfer learning for diagnosis of mci conversion

    Bo Cheng, Bingli Zhu, and Shuchang Pu. Multi-auxiliary domain transfer learning for diagnosis of mci conversion. Neurological Sciences, 43:1721 – 1739, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Going deep into schizophrenia with artificial intelligence

    Jose A Cortes-Briones, Nicolas I Tapia-Rivas, Deepak Cyril D’Souza, and Pablo A Estevez. Going deep into schizophrenia with artificial intelligence. Schizophrenia research, 245:122–140, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Diffusion models in vision: A survey

    Florinel-Alin Croitoru, Vlad Hondru, Radu Tudor Ionescu, and Mubarak Shah. Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(9):10850–10869, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Rnn-based longitudinal analysis for diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease

    Ruoxuan Cui, Manhua Liu, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, et al. Rnn-based longitudinal analysis for diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 73:1–10, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Lei Fan, Arcot Sowmya, Erik H. W. Meijering, and Yang Song. Cancer survival prediction from whole slide images with self-supervised learning and slide consistency. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42:1401–1412, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    The clinical use of structural mri in alzheimer disease

    Giovanni B Frisoni, Nick C Fox, Clifford R Jack Jr, Philip Scheltens, and Paul M Thompson. The clinical use of structural mri in alzheimer disease. Nature reviews neurology, 6(2):67–77, 2010

    2010

  7. [7]

    A hybrid multi-scale attention convolution and aging transformer network for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis

    Xingyu Gao, Hongjie Cai, and Manhua Liu. A hybrid multi-scale attention convolution and aging transformer network for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 27(7):3292–3301, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mild cognitive impairment

    Serge Gauthier, Barry Reisberg, Michael Zaudig, Ronald C Petersen, Karen Ritchie, Karl Broich, Sylvie Belleville, Henry Brodaty, David Bennett, Howard Chertkow, et al. Mild cognitive impairment. The lancet, 367(9518):1262–1270, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Generative adversarial networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(11):139–144, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey

    Hao Guan and Mingxia Liu. Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(3):1173–1185, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Vgg-tswinformer: Transformer-based deep learning model for early alzheimer’s disease prediction

    Zhentao Hu, Zheng Wang, Yong Jin, and Wei Hou. Vgg-tswinformer: Transformer-based deep learning model for early alzheimer’s disease prediction. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 229:107291, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Cerebral structure on mri, part i: Localization of age-related changes

    Terry L Jernigan, Sarah L Archibald, Melissa T Berhow, Elizabeth R Sowell, David S Foster, and John R Hesselink. Cerebral structure on mri, part i: Localization of age-related changes. Biological psychiatry, 29(1):55–67, 1991

    1991

  6. [14]

    Reliability in multi-site structural mri studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data

    Jorge Jovicich, Silvester Czanner, Douglas Greve, Elizabeth Haley, Andre van Der Kouwe, Randy Gollub, David Kennedy, Franz Schmitt, Gregory Brown, James MacFall, et al. Reliability in multi-site structural mri studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom an...

    2006

  7. [15]

    Deep learning for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: A survey

    M Khojaste-Sarakhsi, Seyedhamidreza Shahabi Haghighi, SMT Fatemi Ghomi, and Elena Marchiori. Deep learning for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: A survey. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 130:102332, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hierarchical fully convolutional network for joint atrophy localization and alzheimer’s disease diagnosis using structural mri

    Chunfeng Lian, Mingxia Liu, Jun Zhang, and Dinggang Shen. Hierarchical fully convolutional network for joint atrophy localization and alzheimer’s disease diagnosis using structural mri. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(4):880–893, 2018. 10

    2018

  9. [17]

    Mps-ffa: A multiplane and multiscale feature fusion attention network for alzheimer’s disease prediction with structural mri

    Fei Liu, Huabin Wang, Shiuan-Ni Liang, Zhe Jin, Shicheng Wei, Xuejun Li, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, et al. Mps-ffa: A multiplane and multiscale feature fusion attention network for alzheimer’s disease prediction with structural mri. Computers in Biology and M...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Galvin, and Mirza Faisal Beg

    Ghazal Mirabnahrazam, Da Ma, Cédric Beaulac, Sieun Lee, Karteek Popuri, Hyunwoo Lee, Jiguo Cao, Lei Wang, James E. Galvin, and Mirza Faisal Beg. Predicting alzheimer’s disease progression in healthy and mci subjects using multi-modal deep learning approach. Alzheimer’s & Demen...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome

    Ronald C Petersen, Glenn E Smith, Stephen C Waring, Robert J Ivnik, Eric G Tangalos, and Emre Kokmen. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Archives of neurology, 56(3):303–308, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    Mild cognitive impairment (mci): a historical perspective

    Barry Reisberg, Steven H Ferris, Alan Kluger, Emile Franssen, Jerzy Wegiel, and Mony J De Leon. Mild cognitive impairment (mci): a historical perspective. International psychogeri- atrics, 20(1):18–31, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    An overview of artificial intelligence techniques for diagnosis of schizophrenia based on magnetic resonance imaging modalities: Methods, challenges, and future works

    Delaram Sadeghi, Afshin Shoeibi, Navid Ghassemi, Parisa Moridian, Ali Khadem, Roohallah Alizadehsani, Mohammad Teshnehlab, Juan M Gorriz, Fahime Khozeimeh, Yu-Dong Zhang, et al. An overview of artificial intelligence techniques for diagnosis of schizophrenia based on magnetic ...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Augdiff: Diffusion based feature augmentation for multiple instance learning in whole slide image

    Zhuchen Shao, Liuxi Dai, Yifeng Wang, Haoqian Wang, and Yongbing Zhang. Augdiff: Diffusion based feature augmentation for multiple instance learning in whole slide image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06371, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ladder variational autoencoders

    Casper Kaae Sønderby, Tapani Raiko, Lars Maaløe, Søren Kaae Sønderby, and Ole Winther. Ladder variational autoencoders. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Development of cortical and subcortical brain structures in childhood and adolescence: a structural mri study

    Elizabeth R Sowell, Doris A Trauner, Anthony Gamst, and Terry L Jernigan. Development of cortical and subcortical brain structures in childhood and adolescence: a structural mri study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 44(1):4–16, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    A review of structural magnetic resonance neuroimaging

    M Symms, HR Jäger, K Schmierer, and TA Yousry. A review of structural magnetic resonance neuroimaging. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 75(9):1235–1244, 2004

    2004

  18. [27]

    Structural mri and brain development

    Paul M Thompson, Elizabeth R Sowell, Nitin Gogtay, Jay N Giedd, Christine N Vidal, Kiralee M Hayashi, Alex Leow, Rob Nicolson, Judith L Rapoport, and Arthur W Toga. Structural mri and brain development. International review of neurobiology, 67:285–323, 2005

    2005

  19. [28]

    Deep learning approaches for early prediction of conversion from mci to ad using mri and clinical data: A systematic review

    Gelareh Valizadeh, Reza Elahi, Zahra Hasankhani, Hamidreza Saligheh Rad, and Ahmad Shalbaf. Deep learning approaches for early prediction of conversion from mci to ad using mri and clinical data: A systematic review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, pages 1–70, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Temporal correlation struc- ture learning for mci conversion prediction

    Xiaoqian Wang, Weidong Cai, Dinggang Shen, and Heng Huang. Temporal correlation struc- ture learning for mci conversion prediction. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 446–454. Springer, 2018

    2018

  22. [31]

    Dual attention multi-instance deep learning for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with structural mri

    Wenyong Zhu, Liang Sun, Jiashuang Huang, Liangxiu Han, and Daoqiang Zhang. Dual attention multi-instance deep learning for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with structural mri. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40(9):2354–2366, 2021. 11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.