Machine Learning Workflow to Explain Black-box Models for Early Alzheimer's Disease Classification Evaluated for Multiple Datasets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Purpose: Hard-to-interpret Black-box Machine Learning (ML) were often used for early Alzheimer's Disease (AD) detection. Methods: To interpret eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) black-box models a workflow based on Shapley values was developed. All models were trained on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset and evaluated for an independent ADNI test set, as well as the external Australian Imaging and Lifestyle flagship study of Ageing (AIBL), and Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS) datasets. Shapley values were compared to intuitively interpretable Decision Trees (DTs), and Logistic Regression (LR), as well as natural and permutation feature importances. To avoid the reduction of the explanation validity caused by correlated features, forward selection and aspect consolidation were implemented. Results: Some black-box models outperformed DTs and LR. The forward-selected features correspond to brain areas previously associated with AD. Shapley values identified biologically plausible associations with moderate to strong correlations with feature importances. The most important RF features to predict AD conversion were the volume of the amygdalae, and a cognitive test score. Good cognitive test performances and large brain volumes decreased the AD risk. The models trained using cognitive test scores significantly outperformed brain volumetric models (p<0.05). Cognitive Normal (CN) vs. AD models were successfully transferred to external datasets. Conclusion: In comparison to previous work, improved performances for ADNI and AIBL were achieved for CN vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) classification using brain volumes. The Shapley values and the feature importances showed moderate to strong correlations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 110 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2022.
Builds on
17 of 110 references.
References · 17
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2014Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Netcited by 983
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 617
- 2019Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learncited by 359
- 2018Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensemblescited by 279
- 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 198
- 2019Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Alzheimer's Disease: Overview and Reproducible Evaluationcited by 106
5 more
- 2020dalex: Responsible Machine Learning with Interactive Explainability and Fairness in Pythoncited by 40
- 2019Quantifying Model Complexity via Functional Decomposition for Better Post-Hoc Interpretabilitycited by 22
- 2018Visual Explanations From Deep 3D Convolutional Neural Networks for Alzheimer's Disease Classificationcited by 14
- 2018Visualizing Convolutional Networks for MRI-based Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Diseasecited by 9
- 2021Triplot: model agnostic measures and visualisations for variable importance in predictive models that take into account the hierarchical correlation structurecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.