Abstract
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. This review included 172 articles, from which 234 experiments were extracted. For each of them, we reported the used data set, the feature types, the algorithm type, performance and potential methodological issues. The impact of these characteristics on the performance was evaluated using a multivariate mixed effect linear regressions. We found that using cognitive, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography or electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography variables significantly improved predictive performance compared to not including them, whereas including other modalities, in particular T1 magnetic resonance imaging, did not show a significant effect. The good performance of cognitive assessments questions the wide use of imaging for predicting the progression to AD and advocates for exploring further fine domain-specific cognitive assessments. We also identified several methodological issues, including the absence of a test set, or its use for feature selection or parameter tuning in nearly a fourth of the papers. Other issues, found in 15% of the studies, cast doubts on the relevance of the method to clinical practice. We also highlight that shortterm predictions are likely not to be better than predicting that subjects stay stable over time. These issues highlight the importance of adhering to good practices for the use of machine learning as a decision support system for the clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
Stephane Epelbaum has received honoraria as a speaker or consultant for ELI-LILLY, GE Healthcare, Astellas pharma, ROCHE and BIOGEN
Funding Statement
The research leading to these results has received funding from the program "Investissements d'avenir" ANR-10-IAIHU-06 (Agence Nationale de la Recherche-10-IA Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire-6) from the European Union H2020 program (project EuroPOND, grant number 666992, project HBP SGA1 grant number 720270), from the ICM Big Brain Theory Program (project DYNAMO, project PredictICD), from the Inria Project Lab Program (project Neuromarkers), from the European Research Council (to Dr Durrleman project LEASP, grant number 678304), from the Abeona Foundation (project Brain@Scale). OC is supported by a "contrat d'interface local" from AP-HP. China Scholarship Council supports J.W's work on this topic.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study does not involve human subjects, as it is a review study
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data gathered for this study is availbale at https://gitlab.com/icm-institute/aramislab/mci-progressionreview. The issues identified in each article were removed from this open-access table. They can be requested to the corresponding author.
