Skip to main content
. 2019 May 31;13:509. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00509

Table 7.

Comparison of our proposed method and Liu’s multi-modality method.

Method Subjects Modality CN vs. AD
CN vs. pMCI
ACC SEN SPE AUC ACC SEN SPE AUC
Liu et al., 2018 93 AD + 204 MCI + 100 CN MRI 84.97% 82.65% 87.37% 90.63% 77.84% 76.81% 78.59% 82.72%
PET 88.08% 90.70% 85.98% 94.51% 78.41% 77.94% 78.70% 85.96%
Both 93.26% 92.55% 93.94% 95.68% 82.95% 81.08% 84.31% 88.43%
Proposed method 465 AD + 567 MCI + 480 CN MRI 81.19% 79.27% 83.45% 83.67%
PET 89.11% 90.24% 87.77% 92.69%
Both 90.10%1 90.85% 89.21% 90.84% 82.38%2 87.20% 72.50% 81.64%
Both 87.46%3 90.73% 80.61% 87.61%

1Using B1 protocol, the CN vs. AD training set and the CN vs. AD testing set. 2Using B2 protocol, the CN vs. pMCI training set and the CN vs. pMCI testing set. 3Using B1 protocol, the CN vs. AD training but the CN vs. pMCI testing set. See Table 9 for reference. The best results were indicated in bold.