Demonstrates high accuracy in Alzheimer’s disease classification using a novel imaging framework, suggesting improved diagnostic capabilities.
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder for which accurate and early diagnosis remains difficult. Structural magnetic resonance imaging is widely used to assess disease-related brain changes, but automated classification methods are frequently affected by class imbalance, inter-subject anatomical variability, and orientation-dependent structural patterns. This study addresses three recognised limitations of existing automated systems, namely orientation-blind fusion, fixed expert weighting, and the absence of subject-adaptive plane relevance estimation, by proposing a plane-aware multi-stage mixture-of-experts framework, designated PAM-MoE-AD, for T1-weighted structural MRI. Axial, coronal, and sagittal 2.5D slice stacks were constructed through a content-aware slice-selection procedure, and each plane was modelled with an independent Swin Transformer V2 encoder. Training proceeded through three sequential stages comprising plane-specific representation learning, supervised refinement of plane-specific experts, and mixture-of-experts fusion governed by a learned gating network. Experiments were conducted on subject-level data splits derived from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Under five-fold subject-level cross-validation the framework achieved a mean accuracy of 97.21% and a mean balanced accuracy of 93.14%, with 95% confidence intervals from 96.71% to 97.71% and from 92.47% to 93.81% respectively. External evaluation on a 124-scan AIBL subset, performed without fine-tuning, retained an accuracy of 93.52% and a balanced accuracy of 91.31%. The framework outperformed three same-split baselines comprising a 3D ResNet-18, a 3D Swin Transformer, and a multi-plane CNN. Quantitative Grad-CAM analysis grounded model decisions in established atrophic regions including the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: