Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 12.
Published in final edited form as: Neurobiol Aging. 2016 Jul 15;46:180–191. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.07.005

Table 7.

The Rs of the proposed methods (oRF-L1 and oRF-L1-soft) on the data set from the randomly selected 5 acquisition sites

Month Method R
MMSE CDR-SOB CDR-GLOB ADAS-cog
12 oRF-L1 0.847 0.815 0.810 0.877
oRF-L1-soft 0.852 0.836 0.807 0.887
24 oRF-L1 0.873 0.849 0.822 0.898
oRF-L1-soft 0.873 0.879 0.859 0.918
36 oRF-L1 0.888 0.930 0.866 0.926
oRF-L1-soft 0.894 0.935 0.877 0.930
48 oRF-L1 n/a n/a n/a n/a
oRF-L1-soft n/a n/a n/a n/a

The best results are shown in bold. Since there are only 3 subjects at the 48th month, the Rs are not applicable.

Key: ADAS-cog, Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale–cognitive subscale; CDR-GLOB, clinical dementia rating–global; CDR-SOB, clinical dementia rating–sum of boxes; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; oRF-L1, oblique RF with the L1 norm constraint; oRF-L1-soft, oblique RF with L1 and soft split; Rs, Pearson’s correlation coefficients.