Table 8.
Comparison of our proposed method and published AD diagnosis methods.
| Method | Subjects | CN vs. AD |
sMCI vs. pMCI |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | SEN | SPE | AUC | ACC | SEN | SPE | AUC | ||
| Lin et al., 2018 | 93 AD + 204 MCI + 100 CN | 88.79% | – | – | – | 73.04% | – | – | – |
| Tong et al., 2017 | 37 AD + 75 MCI + 35 CN | 88.6% | – | – | 94.8% | – | – | – | – |
| Zu et al., 2016 | 51 AD + 99MCI + 52 CN | 95.95% | – | – | – | 69.78% | – | – | – |
| Liu et al., 2015 | 85 AD + 168 MCI + 77 CN | 91.40% | 92.32% | 90.42% | – | – | – | – | – |
| Jie et al., 2015 | 51 AD + 99 MCI + 52 CN | 95.03% | – | – | – | 68.94% | – | – | – |
| Li et al., 2014 | 93 AD + 204 MCI + 101 CN | 92.87% | – | – | 89.82% | 72.44% | – | – | 70.14% |
| Proposed method | 465 AD + 567 MCI + 480 CN | 90.10%1 | 90.85% | 89.21% | 90.84% | 72.22%2 | 73.44% | 71.25% | 77.49% |
| – | – | – | – | 76.90%3 | 68.15% | 83.93% | 79.61% | ||
1Using B1 protocol, the CN vs. AD training set and the CN vs. AD testing set. 2Using B2 protocol, the CN vs. sMCI training set and the CN vs. sMCI testing set. 3Using B2 protocol, the CN vs. AD training but the CN vs. sMCI testing set. See Table 9 for reference. The best results were indicated in bold.