Helena Rico Pereira, Vasco Sá Diogo, José Manuel Fonseca, Hugo Alexandre Ferreira, Diana Pinto Prata
{"title":"Real-World Generalizability of Alzheimer's Volumetric MRI Machine-Learning Models: External Validation with British Data.","authors":"Helena Rico Pereira, Vasco Sá Diogo, José Manuel Fonseca, Hugo Alexandre Ferreira, Diana Pinto Prata","doi":"10.1007/s00062-026-01688-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assessing generalizability and performance of machine learning models in clinical settings is crucial. In this study, we aimed to test our models' performance on an external validation real-world clinical dataset and to evaluate the impact of magnetic field strength and brain volume normalization on the classification.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We validated two previously published models trained on public datasets (Alzheimer's disease [AD], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and cognitively normal [CN] subjects) on a real-world clinical dataset from UK memory clinics (SLaM-BRC: 255 non-AD [subjects without cognitive complaints], 281 MCI and 711 AD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our 'CN vs. AD' model showed similar performance when tested at different magnetic fields (1.5T vs. 3.0T: 87.1% of 93 subjects had the same class assignment). The volume-normalized 'CN vs. AD' model (87.7% balanced accuracy [BAC]) led to decreased performance in the SLaM-BRC (81.5% BAC) due to misclassifications of non-AD subjects with evidence of hippocampal atrophy. The non-normalized 'CN vs. MCI vs. AD' model's performance (initially 55.3% BAC) remained similar in the SLaM-BRC cohort (BAC: SLaM-BRC = 54.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Volumes normalized to the estimated total intracranial volume led to a smaller difference in performance between internal and external datasets than non-normalized volumes. Our 'CN vs. MCI vs. AD' model performance remained the same, denoting robustness. These findings suggest that dataset and disease/diagnostic heterogeneities, magnetic field, and brain volume normalization may affect models' performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":10391,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-026-01688-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Assessing generalizability and performance of machine learning models in clinical settings is crucial. In this study, we aimed to test our models' performance on an external validation real-world clinical dataset and to evaluate the impact of magnetic field strength and brain volume normalization on the classification.
Methods: We validated two previously published models trained on public datasets (Alzheimer's disease [AD], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and cognitively normal [CN] subjects) on a real-world clinical dataset from UK memory clinics (SLaM-BRC: 255 non-AD [subjects without cognitive complaints], 281 MCI and 711 AD).
Results: Our 'CN vs. AD' model showed similar performance when tested at different magnetic fields (1.5T vs. 3.0T: 87.1% of 93 subjects had the same class assignment). The volume-normalized 'CN vs. AD' model (87.7% balanced accuracy [BAC]) led to decreased performance in the SLaM-BRC (81.5% BAC) due to misclassifications of non-AD subjects with evidence of hippocampal atrophy. The non-normalized 'CN vs. MCI vs. AD' model's performance (initially 55.3% BAC) remained similar in the SLaM-BRC cohort (BAC: SLaM-BRC = 54.6%).
Conclusion: Volumes normalized to the estimated total intracranial volume led to a smaller difference in performance between internal and external datasets than non-normalized volumes. Our 'CN vs. MCI vs. AD' model performance remained the same, denoting robustness. These findings suggest that dataset and disease/diagnostic heterogeneities, magnetic field, and brain volume normalization may affect models' performance.
目的:评估机器学习模型在临床环境中的普遍性和性能是至关重要的。在这项研究中,我们旨在测试我们的模型在外部验证的真实临床数据集上的性能,并评估磁场强度和脑容量归一化对分类的影响。方法:我们在来自英国记忆诊所的真实临床数据集(slamc - brc: 255名非阿尔茨海默病(无认知症状的受试者),281名轻度认知障碍受试者和711名AD受试者)上验证了之前发表的两个公共数据集(阿尔茨海默病[AD],轻度认知障碍受试者[MCI]和认知正常受试者[CN])上训练的模型。结果:我们的“CN vs. AD”模型在不同的磁场下显示出相似的性能(1.5T vs. 3.0T: 93名受试者中有87.1%的人有相同的班级作业)。体积归一化的“CN vs AD”模型(87.7%平衡精度[BAC])导致SLaM-BRC (81.5% BAC)的表现下降,原因是对有海马萎缩证据的非AD受试者进行了错误分类。非标准化的“CN vs. MCI vs. AD”模型的表现(最初为55.3% BAC)在SLaM-BRC队列中保持相似(BAC: SLaM-BRC = 54.6%)。结论:与未归一化的体积相比,将体积归一化到估计的总颅内容积导致内部和外部数据集之间的性能差异较小。我们的“CN vs. MCI vs. AD”模型性能保持不变,表明鲁棒性。这些发现表明,数据集和疾病/诊断的异质性、磁场和脑容量归一化可能会影响模型的性能。
期刊介绍:
Clinical Neuroradiology provides current information, original contributions, and reviews in the field of neuroradiology. An interdisciplinary approach is accomplished by diagnostic and therapeutic contributions related to associated subjects.
The international coverage and relevance of the journal is underlined by its being the official journal of the German, Swiss, and Austrian Societies of Neuroradiology.