Cascaded Multi-view Canonical Correlation (CaMCCo) for Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease via Fusion of Clinical, Imaging and Omic Features

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The introduction of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as a diagnostic category adds to the challenges of diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). No single marker has been proven to accurately categorize patients into their respective diagnostic groups. Thus, previous studies have attempted to develop fused predictors of AD and MCI. These studies have two main limitations. Most do not simultaneously consider all diagnostic categories and provide suboptimal fused representations using the same set of modalities for prediction of all classes. In this work, we present a combined framework, cascaded multiview canonical correlation (CaMCCo), for fusion and cascaded classification that incorporates all diagnostic categories and optimizes classification by selectively combining a subset of modalities at each level of the cascade. CaMCCo is evaluated on a data cohort comprising 149 patients for whom neurophysiological, neuroimaging, proteomic and genomic data were available. Results suggest that fusion of select modalities for each classification task outperforms (mean AUC = 0.92) fusion of all modalities (mean AUC = 0.54) and individual modalities (mean AUC = 0.90, 0.53, 0.71, 0.73, 0.62, 0.68). In addition, CaMCCo outperforms all other multi-class classification methods for MCI prediction (PPV: 0.80 vs. 0.67, 0.63).</jats:p>

section_content: Alongside recent developments in imaging and molecular diagnostic technologies, several studies have sought to identify biomarkers of AD. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers in particular have been extensively studied [6] [7] [8] on account of their direct relationship with pathological characteristics of the disease such as amyloid burden and neuronal degeneration. On the genetic front, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) has been established as an indicator of risk for AD 9. Structural information on 1. 5 Tesla T1w Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) 10 such as hippocampal volume and functional information on [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake (FDG-PET) 11 such as changes in glucose metabolism have previously shown to be predictive of AD. Availability of multiple, complementary markers and data streams now presents an opportunity to combine different sources of information in order to potentially improve the ability to predict AD early, prior to its onset. However, qualitatively combining the vast amount of information is challenging and likely to result in subjective interpretations. On the other hand, quantitative approaches to identification of fused biomarkers is challenged by differences in data dimensionality, small sample size of most biomedical datasets and by the increase in data dimensionality associated with combining multiscale data [12] [13] [14] [15]. 

Several methods have previously been developed and explored to quantitatively combine multiscale biomedical data. Most data fusion approaches can generally be categorized based on the level at which information is combined: (i) raw data level (low level fusion), (ii) feature level (intermediate level fusion) or (iii) decision level (high level fusion) 16. Data integration at the raw data level is limited to homogeneous data sources and is thus not directly applicable for fusion of multiscale, biomedical data. Alternatively, decision level strategies 17 bypass challenges associated with fusion of heterogeneous data types by combining independently derived decisions from each data source. In doing so, relationships between the different data channels remain largely unexploited 14, 15. 

Most previous work in prediction of AD employ feature level integration where raw data is first converted into quantitative feature representations which are then combined using concatenation-based 18, 19, kernel-based 20, 21, manifold-based 22 and most recently deep learning-based 23, 24 methods. A brief summary of select related previous work is provided in Table 1. While feature concatenation 18, 19 provides a simple method for investigating the added predictive value of each modality, it is sub-optimal for combining modalities with significantly different dimensionalities as modalities with larger feature sets are likely to dominate the joint-representation and hence the fused predictor 12. Kernel-based and manifold-based methods [20] [21] [22] alternatively transform raw data from the original space to a high dimensional embedding space where the different data types are more homogeneously represented, thereby making them more amenable for fusion. However, such methods are prone to overfitting 25, 26 particularly given the small sample sizes of most biomedical datasets and the noise associated with each of the biomedical data sources which, if unaccounted for, may drown the increase in signal achievable by fusion. Suk et al. 23 and Liu et al. 24 presented deep learning based fusion approaches which seek to learn integrated structural and functional feature representations from MRI and PET. However, the method is limited to fusion of spatially aligned imaging data. In addition, deep learning methods generally require very large datasets in order to model complex non-linear relationships via several hidden layers. This could very easily result in overfitting on datasets with small sample size, especially in the presence of noise. 

Regardless of the fusion strategy employed, most previous studies evaluate their methods by simplifying the multiclass problem (HC vs. MCI vs. AD) into the following binary classification tasks -AD vs. HC, MCI vs. HC. Recent work 24 showed that multiclass classification resulted in significantly lower predictive performance as compared to that of the aforementioned binary classification tasks, suggesting that all the diagnostic classes must be considered to estimate the performance of a proposed model in a clinical setting. Generally, there are three common methods for multiclass classification -one vs. another, one vs. all (OVA) and one shot classification (OSC).

section_name: For classification task with

section_content: classes, the one vs. another classifier attempts to independently solve binary class problems c i vs. c j, ≠ i j arising from all pairwise combinations of classes. With this strategy, it is unclear how to combine results from the multiple binary problems in order to then determine the overall classifier performance. Alternatively, OVA seeks to solve c i vs {c j }, j = 1 … n, ≠ j i, while OSC attempts to simultaneously solve c 1 vs. c 2 vs. … vs. c n. OVA may not be able to appropriately classify intermediate classes such as MCI where the 'all' category comprises of data points that lie on either extrema of disease spectrum (i. e. healthy and AD). While OSC, which classifies multiple classes at once, overcomes the aforementioned limitations of the other two strategies, it assumes that the same set of modalities are optimal for separating all classes. When addressing multiclass problem in the context of data fusion, it may not be realistic to expect the same combination of modalities to be the most informative for all the various classes. In addition, some classification tasks may require information from fewer modalities to provide sufficiently accurate information while other, more challenging tasks may require additional information. 

In this work, we introduce the cascaded multiview canonical correlation (CaMCCo) framework which brings together three different unique ideas; data fusion approach, modality selection concept and a cascaded classification scheme. The CaMCCo approach is employed in this paper for the problem of AD diagnosis. CaMCCo seeks to fuse a subset of modalities from T1w MRI, FDG PET, ApoE, CSF, plasma proteomics and neurophysiological exam scores in order to optimize classifier performance at each level of the cascade (Fig. 1 ). For data fusion, CaMCCo employs supervised multiview canonical correlation analysis (sMVCCA) 27, 28 which provides a common, low dimensional representation that is discriminative of classes and allows for combining any number of heterogeneous forms of multidimensional, multimodal data. The fusion scheme operates under the assumption that information overlap increases with increasing number of data sources or 'views' as all views fundamentally capture information pertaining to the same object. As such, it seeks to maximize correlations between modalities and with class labels. 

Previous work 27, 28 has shown the application of sMVCCA in the context of predicting prostate cancer prognosis where sMVCCA based fusion of histologic and proteomic features was found to be more discriminative of classes as compared to individual modalities as well as several fused representations including LDA, CCA, MVCCA, PCA, regularized CCA (RCCA), supervised regularized CCA (SRCCA), and generalized embedding concatenation (GEC). Although sMVCCA is able to fuse any number of modalities, the practicality of its application in a clinical setting where the trade-off between added improvement in performance and increased burden of additional tests must be leveraged 29. CaMCCo therefore extends on previous work to address clinical challenges associated with AD diagnosis by employing the fusion methodology within cascaded classification framework where only a subset of modality(ies) that maximize the performance for each classification task are fused at each level of cascade. Unlike most prior applications of multiclass classification methods to AD diagnosis, CaMCCo simultaneously considers all diagnostic classes via its cascaded classification approach. Unlike most prior applications of data fusion methods for AD diagnosis, CaMCCo seeks to identify, selectively retain and combine only the most informative data source(s) for each class label. As shown in Fig. 1, each patient is first classified as being healthy or cognitively impaired (CI) using ADAS-Cog score, CSF and APOE. If classified as CI, the ADAS-Cog and PET are used to distinguish between MCI and AD cases.
section_name: 

section_name: Methods

section_content: Multiview Canonical Correlation Analysis (sMVCCA) 27, 28, an extension of canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and multiview canonical correlation analysis (MVCCA) 30, to obtain a low-dimensional, shared representation of the modalities of interest. CCA 31 is a linear dimensionality reduction method commonly used for data fusion as it accounts for relationships between two sets of input variables. MVCCA generalizes CCA by finding the linear subspace where pairwise correlations between multiple (more than two) modalities can be maximized. However, both CCA and MVCCA are unsupervised and therefore do not guarantee a subspace that is optimal for class separation. sMVCCA is a supervised form of MVCCA where class labels are embedded as one of the variable sets. Additional details and formulations for CCA and MVCCA are provided in the appendix and the theoretical framework for sMVCCA is provided below. Table 2 provides a summary of notations used in this section. Consider a multimodal dataset

, where n is the number of subjects, K is the number of modalities and x k in  × n M k refers to the feature matrix of modality k containing M k features. Additionally, X has a corresponding binary class label matrix Y in  × n G, where G is the total number of classes. sMVCCA seeks to maximize correlation within the modalities in X and between X and Y as shown below

This can be expressed in a compact matrix form as follows:

where Y is a matrix in which class labels are encoded using Soft-1-of-Class strategy 32. 

Solving Equation 3 consists of two steps: (i) Ignoring the constraint in (4) leaves us with a quadratic programming problem, whose W* corresponds to eigenvectors of the n-largest eigenvalues of a generalized eigenvalue system:

; (ii) Imposing constraint (4) upon obtaining the optimal eigenvectors W* by normalizing the corresponding section of each modality:
section_name: Supervised Multiview Canonical Correlation Analysis for Data Fusion. We apply supervised

section_content: As shown in Fig. 2, CaMCCo divides the classification task for a multiclass, multimodal dataset into a cascade of multiple, sequential binary classification tasks, for each of which the optimal fused representation is independently determined and provided as input to the classifier. For the multimodal dataset X in Therefore, designing the cascaded classifier for CaMCCo requires determination of (a) the sequence of classification tasks that provide the best overall classifier performance, as well as the respective (b) number and (c) type of modalities to combine at each level of the cascade. In this work, these parameters were determined experimentally on the training cohort as described in Section 3. 5.
section_name: Cascaded Multi-view Canonical Correlation Analysis (CaMCCo).

section_content: Dataset Description. Data used in the preparation of this work were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (www. loni. ucla. edu/ADNI). The ADNI was launched in 2003 with the primary goal of testing whether serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), other biological markers, and clinical and neuropsychological assessment can be combined to measure the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease (AD). The initial goal of ADNI was to recruit 800 adults, ages 55 to 90, to participate in the research -approximately 200 cognitively normal older individuals to be followed for 3 years, 400 people with MCI to be followed for 3 years, and 200 people with early AD to be followed for 2 years (see www. adni-info. org for up-to-date information). The research protocol was approved by each local institutional review board and written informed consent. In addition to raw data, the ADNI database contains several post-processed and individually evaluated biomarkers. 

In this work, we consider a subset of cases for which the following was available in the database (i) pre-computed features from T1w MRI and FDG PET, (ii) neurocognitive ADAS-cog score, (iii) complete record of CSF Proteomics, Plasma Proteomics, ApoE and (iv) clinical diagnosis at baseline. 149 ADNI participants who fulfilled the criteria were included, of which 52 were diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease (AD), 71 were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 26 were healthy controls (HC). 

Table 3 provides the clinical and demographic details of the population considered in this study as per their diagnosis at baseline. The unique ADNI database provided RID of all patients considered in this study is provided in the Appendix. 

Feature Description. Table 4 summarizes the number and types of features considered in this study for each modality. From imaging data, we consider volumetric features extracted from T1w MRI and measures of hippocampal glucose metabolism 33, 34 from FDG PET. Considered molecular markers include proteomic measurements from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma from the biomarker consortium and geneotype ApoE data. We additionally included a neurophysiological test score as such tests serve as the primary means for diagnosis in the current clinical setting. Although the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly performed clinical test, we avoid using MMSE scores as they were used to determine the "ground truth" labels on which we train and test CaMCCo. Therefore, we use an alternate test score, modified Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale -Cognition (ADAS-Cog) which has been used to assess the effects of experimental treatments for AD in clinical trials 35. 

Classification Model. The dataset was split into training and a holdout validation set with each comprising 40% and 60% of the data, respectively. Classification and fusion parameters were determined on the training set using 10 iterations of 5-fold stratified cross validation, upon which the optimized classifier trained on the full training set was applied to the independent validation set. Naive Bayes classifier 36 was used to evaluate the various fused and individual modality representations. Naive Bayes is a widely used, well-established probabilistic classifier that is known to perform well on small datasets.
section_name: Experimental Design

section_content: Performance measures used to evaluate each classification task include: accuracy (ACC), balanced accuracy (BACC) 37, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 38, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and positive predictive value (PPV). The definitions and descriptions of each of these metrics are provided in Table 8 in the Appendix. CaMCCO Model. Class groupings and modalities selected for fusion at each level of the cascaded classification design employed by CaMCCo (Fig. 1 ) was determined experimentally on the training set. One-vs-all (AD vs. all, MCI vs. all, HC vs. all) classifiers were constructed and evaluated independently for each considered modality. The task that most consistently resulted in the highest AUC across all modalities served as the first level of the cascade so as to reduce error propagation. Among AD, MCI and HC, the remaining classes were assigned to the second level of the cascade. 

For every classification task within the cascade, each modality was ranked based on the AUC it achieved across iterations and cross validation folds within the training set. The n highest performing modalities were fused via sMVCCA, where n was varied from 2 to 6 (total number of considered modalities). The n modalities, which in combination, provided the highest training AUC were selected. 

Comparative Strategies. CaMCCo represents a framework () composed of multiple modules corresponding to modality selection (), multimodal data fusion ( ), and multiclass classification (). Accordingly, the comparative strategies against which we evaluate CaMCCo involve systematically replacing the method used for one or more of these modules with an alternative strategy. Table 5 lists the notation for each of these strategies and provides a short description. 

Single Modality and Multimodality Approaches. Each modality was evaluated using a single modality framework ( MRI,  PET, CSF , PP , APOE ,  ADAS ) consisting of cascaded classification ( CAS ) to ensure fair comparison with CaMCCo. In addition, we compared classification performance of CaMCCo with that of a cascaded classification model where all modalities were fused at each level of the cascade ( ALL ). 

Principal Component Analysis for Data Fusion. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a dimensionality reduction method which projects input data onto an alternate subspace defined by orthogonal basis vectors which capture the direction of variance in the data. Consider a high dimensional, concatenated multimodal data matrix

where K refers to the number of modalities, n refers to the number of subjects, and M k refers to the number of features in modality k.
section_name: Evaluation metrics.

section_content: T Singular value decomposition is applied to mean centered data matrix, X, which results in U, S, V. The columns of

are the principal components of X or the orthogonal basis vectors, ordered decreasingly by the amount of variance in the dataset explained by each component. 

is a diagonal matrix. To reduce data dimensionality, the top d principal components containing most of the variance in the data are retained, onto which the data is projected. 

Multiclass Classification. For a classification task with G classes, One-vs-All (OVA) method constructs G classifiers, each tailored to separate one class from the rest. One Shot Classification (OSC) generates a single classifier designed to simultaneously distinguish between all the classes. The last comparative strategy involves the following binary classification tasks, AD vs. HC and MCI vs. HC. 

Experiment 1: Single Modality and Multi-Modality Cascaded Classification. The objective of this experiment is to examine (i) classification performance achieved by combining multiple modalities as compared to any single modality for all classification tasks within the cascade design. In addition, the experiment seeks to determine if (ii) combining subsets of modalities tailored to optimize classification at each level of the cascade provides comparable and/or improved performance as compared to combining all the modalities for all tasks. Finally, it also evaluates (iii) the impact of the chosen fusion method on the findings for (i) and (ii). 

To ) classification. For individual modality experiments, PCA was applied to the experiments where the number of features were larger than the number of samples to avoid curse of dimensionality. For fused and concatenated classifiers, the number of reduced dimensions was optimized on the training set. Therefore, we consider all the combinations of modalities and fusion methods listed below: Experiment 3: Evaluation of Fused Representation on Binary Classification Tasks. We perform binary classification ( BIN ) for the following two sets of classes, HC vs. AD and MCI vs. HC, in order to allow for direct comparison of the performance of fusion approach used in CaMCCo ( SMVCCA +  SEL ) with that reported in literature. As with CaMCCo, the optimal set of modalities to combine for each classification task are determined experimentally from the training set. In addition, we also report binary classification results achieved by individual modalities to examine the effect of fusion for these classification tasks and also to gain insight into the differences in classifier performance on account of the data cohort used in this study as compared to those in other studies.
section_name: = U S V X X [ , , ] SVD( )

section_content: Experiment 1: Single Modality and Multi-Modality Cascaded Classification. Figure 3 shows the performance of cascaded classifier when applied to (i) single modalities ( MRI, PET ,  CSF, PP , APOE , ADAS  ), (ii) fusion of all modalities ( ALL, PCAL  ) and (iii) fusion of selected modalities with multiple fusion methods ( CAMCCO,  PCA ) for prediction of HC, MCI and AD on the testing cohort. As shown in Fig. 1, ADAS-Cog, CSF and APOE were combined at the first cascade level (HC vs. All) and ADAS-Cog, and PET were combined at the second level (AD vs. MCI) in both CAMCCO  and PCA . For HC vs. all,  CAMCCO shows higher performance (AUC = 0. 97) as compared to all individual modalities (max AUC = 0. 93), PCA  (AUC = 0. 94), PCAL  and ALL  (AUC = 0. 52). Among the individual modalities, ADAS , CSF  and  APOE provided the top 3 classification AUCs, which was consistent with observations in the training set which led to these three modalities being selected for fusion in CaMCCo. 

For AD vs. MCI,  CAMCCO, PCA  and ADAS  showed similar performances (AUC = 0. 89). This may, in part, be on account of the lack of orthogonality in the features being fused. A correlation test between the ADAS and PET features showed correlation coefficients between -0. 49 and -0. 51 with p-value < 0. 01. In fact, the modality selection strategy employed in this work is limited in that it does not account for relationships between modalities to identify those that optimize the performance when fused. Instead, the selection of modalities are simplified and are based on their individual performances. However, it is interesting to note that despite the significantly poorer performance of PET  as compared to  ADAS, combining PET with ADAS-Cog does not degrade the performance. We note that, similar to HC vs. All,  CAMCCO significantly outperforms ALL . 

Experiment 2: Comparison of Multi-Class Classification Strategies for Fused Predictors. Table 6 shows the performance of CAMCCO ,  OVA and OSC  for prediction of HC, MCI and AD. Across all 3 classes, it is evident that OVA  and CAMCCO  outperform OSC .  OVA and  CAMCCO show comparable AUCs for AD classification, although  OVA shows incrementally higher accuracy, sensitivity and specificity as compared to CAMCCO . For MCI classification however,  CAMCCO significantly outperforms  OVA in terms of all metrics (OVA AUC = 0. 78 vs. CaMCCo AUC = 0. 88). This is on account of the lower classification performance of MCI vs. all which is a challenging task provided the heterogeneity of the 'all' category which consists of both AD and HC patients. Therefore, CaMCCo provides the most optimal performance overall, across all 3 classes. best classification for MCI vs. HC. Thus,  BIN for the two classification tasks fused the respective, aforementioned modalities for the test set. For the former classification task, the performance of  BIN was similar to that of the best performing individual modality, ADAS-Cog, which already provided near perfect AUC leaving little scope for improvement. According to other evaluation metrics, ADAS-Cog outperforms the fused representation. For the more challenging MCI vs. HC classification task however,  BIN improves classifier performance slightly in terms of AUC (0. 92 vs. 0. 93) but more significantly in terms of BACC (0. 77 vs. 0. 82) and SPEC (0. 65 vs. 0. 71). In comparison to most previous work, our individual modality and fused modality results appear to be slightly higher possibly on account of the features that were considered in this work, all of which were quality controlled and independently proven to provide good performance previously. In addition, this work considers a neurocognitive score (ADAS-Cog), a measure that is mostly either used as a response variable or unconsidered in many fusion studies. The ADAS score appears to be strongly predictive of all classification tasks, possibly on account of a strong correlation with the MMSE scores, which were used to derive the ground truth class labels. Therefore, most gains in classification accuracy appears to be only slightly incremental. A correlation test between ADAS scores and MMSE scores across 118 patients, who had the latter data available, showed that the two were indeed highly correlated with a coefficient of -0. 65 and p-value < 0. 01.
section_name: Results and Discussion

section_name: Experiment 3: Evaluation of Fused Representation on Binary Classification Tasks.

section_content: In module independently. In the first experiment, for instance, classification method was held constant while the data fusion and modality selection modules were varied and compared with that of CaMCCo. In the second experiment, the modality selection and data fusion methods were held constant and the cascaded classifier in CaMCCo was compared against other multiclass classification methods. Experimental findings on the ADNI dataset, comprising imaging, proteomics, genomics and neurophysiological data, consistently indicated that fusion of select multi-scale data channels, as in CaMCCo, outperforms fusion of all available modalities. In addition, the results showed that cascaded classification used in CaMCCo is better suited than other multi-class classification methods for MCI prediction. Finally, CaMCCo was compared against individual modalities for the two most commonly investigated binary classification tasks in most related studies, AD vs. HC and MCI vs. HC. While AD vs. HC was a simpler task well resolved by a single modality in our study, MCI vs. HC was a more challenging task where the application of CaMCCo appeared to improve classification, most significantly in terms of specificity. CaMCCo appears to be better able to distinguish between MCI and HC as compared to most previous studies, some of which are listed in Table 5. However, the work presented in this paper is limited mainly by the method with which the modalities to be combined at each level of the cascade is determined. We only combine the modalities that independently provide the best accuracies on the training set, which may not be complementary. Nonetheless, we found that considering a subset of modalities provides improved performance over fusing all modalities. These findings indicate that incorporation of a more advanced modality selection method and additionally a feature selection method into the framework may provide further improvement in performance. Another limitation of the proposed strategy is the propagation of error from one level of the cascade to the next. To minimize this error, we therefore begin the cascade with the one-vs-all classification providing the least error. Despite these limitations, current findings indicate that the presented framework provides a promising platform for fusion of multiscale, multimodal data for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.
section_name: Conclusion

section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers 1U24CA199374-01, R01CA202752-01A1, R01CA208236-01A1, R21CA179327-01, R21CA195152-01, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases under award number R01DK098503-02, National Center for Research Resources under award number 1 C06 RR12463-01, the DOD Prostate Cancer Synergistic Idea Development Award ( PC120857 ); the DOD Lung Cancer Idea Development New Investigator Award ( LC130463 ), the DOD Prostate Cancer Idea Development Award, the DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program W81XWH-16-1-0329 ; the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center Pilot Grant VelaSano Grant from the Cleveland Clinic the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Program in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) ( National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904 ) and DOD ADNI (Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012 ). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: Alzheimer's Association; Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc. ; Biogen Idec Inc. ; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ; Eisai Inc. ; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ; Eli Lilly and Company ; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La
section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: Consortia Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Michael Weiner 2, Paul Aisen 3, Ronald Petersen 4, Clifford Jack 5, William Jagust 6, John Trojanowki 7, Arthur Toga 8, Laurel Beckett 9, Robert Green 10, Andrew Saykin 11, John Morris 12, Leslie Shaw 12, Jeffrey Kaye 13, Joseph Quinn 13, Lisa Silbert 13, Betty Lind 13, Raina Carter 13, Sara Dolen 13, Lon Schneider 8, Sonia Pawluczyk 8, Mauricio Beccera 8, Liberty Teodoro 8, Bryan Spann 8, James Brewer 14, Helen Vanderswag 14, Adam Fleisher 14, Judith Heidebrink 15, Joanne Lord 15, Sara Mason 5, Colleen Albers 5, David Knopman 5, Kris Johnson 5, Rachelle Doody 16, Javier Villanueva-Meyer 16, Munir Chowdhury 16, Susan Rountree 16, Mimi Dang 16, Yaakov Stern 17, Lawrence Honig 17, Karen Bell 17, Beau Ances 12, John Morris 12, Maria Carroll 12, Mary Creech 2, Erin Franklin 12, Mark Mintun 12, Stacy Schneider 12, Angela Oliver 12, Daniel Marson 18, Randall Griffith 18, David Clark 18, David Geldmacher 18, John Brockington 18, Erik Roberson 18, Marissa Natelson Love 18, Hillel Grossman 19, Effie Mitsis 19, Raj Shah 20, Leyla deToledo-Morrell 20, Ranjan Duara 21, Daniel Varon 21, Maria Greig 21, Peggy Roberts 21, Marilyn Albert 22, Chiadi Onyike 22, Daniel D'Agostino 22, Stephanie Kielb 22, James Galvin 23, Brittany Cerbone 23, Christina Michel 23, Dana Pogorelec 23, Henry Rusinek 23, Mony de Leon 23, Lidia Glodzik 23, Susan De Santi 23, P. Doraiswamy 24, Jeffrey Petrella 24, Salvador Borges-Neto 24, Terence Wong 24, Edward Coleman 24, Charles Smith 25, Greg Jicha 25, Peter Hardy 25, Partha Sinha 25, Elizabeth Oates 25, Gary Conrad 25, Anton Porsteinsson 26, Bonnie Goldstein 26, Kim Martin 26, Kelly Makino 26, M. Ismail 26, Connie Brand 26, Ruth Mulnard 27, Gaby Thai 27, Catherine Mc-Adams-Ortiz 27, Kyle Womack 28, Dana Mathews 28, Mary Quiceno 28, Allan Levey 29, James Lah 29, Janet Cellar 29, Jeffrey Burns 30, Russell Swerdlow 30, William Brooks 30, Liana Apostolova 31, Kathleen Tingus 31, Ellen Woo 31, Daniel Silverman 31, Po Lu 31, George Bartzokis 31, Neill Graff-Radford 32, Francine Parfitt 32, Tracy Kendall 32, Heather Johnson 32, Martin Farlow 11, Ann Marie Hake 11, Brandy Matthews 11, Jared Brosch 11, Scott Herring 11, Cynthia Hunt 11, Christopher Dyck 33, Richard Carson 33, Martha MacAvoy 33, Pradeep Varma 33, Howard Chertkow 34, Howard Bergman 34, Chris Hosein 34, Sandra Black 35, Bojana Stefanovic 35, Curtis Caldwell 35, Ging-Yuek Robin Hsiung 36, Howard Feldman 36, Benita Mudge 36, Michele Assaly 36, Elizabeth Finger 37, Stephen Pasternack 37, Irina Rachisky 37, Dick Trost 37, Andrew Kertesz 37, Charles Bernick 38, Donna Munic 38, Marek-Marsel Mesulam 39, Kristine Lipowski 39, Sandra Weintraub 39, Borna Bonakdarpour 39, Diana Kerwin 39, Chuang-Kuo Wu 39, Nancy Johnson 39, Carl Sadowsky 40, Teresa Villena 40, Raymond Scott Turner 41, Kathleen Johnson 41, Brigid Reynolds 41, Reisa Sperling 42, Keith Johnson 42, Gad Marshall 42, Jerome Yesavage 43, Joy Taylor 43, Barton Lane 43, Allyson Rosen 43, Jared Tinklenberg 43, Marwan Sabbagh 44, Christine Belden 44, Sandra Jacobson 44, Sherye Sirrel 44, Neil Kowall 45, Ronald Killiany 45, Andrew Budson 45, Alexander Norbash 45, Patricia Lynn Johnson 45, Thomas Obisesan 46, Saba Wolday 46, Joanne Allard 46, Alan Lerner 47, Paula Ogrocki 47, Curtis Tatsuoka 47, Parianne Fatica 47, Evan Fletcher 48, Pauline Maillard 48, John Olichney 48, Charles DeCarli 48, Owen Carmichael 48, Smita Kittur 49, Michael Borrie 50, T-Y Lee 50, RobBartha 50, Sterling Johnson 51, Sanjay Asthana 51, Cynthia Carlsson 51, Steven Potkin 52, Adrian Preda 52, Dana Nguyen 52, Pierre Tariot 53, Anna Burke 53, Nadira Trncic 53, Adam Fleisher 53, Stephanie Reeder 53, Vernice Bates 54, Horacio Capote 54, Michelle Rainka 54, Douglas Scharre 55, Maria Kataki 55, Anahita Adeli 55, Earl Zimmerman 56, Dzintra Celmins 56, Alice Brown 56, Godfrey Pearlson 57, Karen Blank 57, Karen Anderson 57, Laura Flashman 58, Marc Seltzer 58, Mary Hynes 58, Robert Santulli 58, Kaycee Sink 59, Leslie Gordineer 59, Jeff Williamson 59, Pradeep Garg 59, Franklin Watkins 59, Brian Ott 60, Henry Querfurth 60, Geoffrey Tremont 60, Stephen Salloway 61, Paul Malloy 61, Stephen Correia 61, Howard Rosen 62, Bruce Miller 62, David Perry 62, Jacobo Mintzer 63, Kenneth Spicer 63, David Bachman 63, Nunzio Pomara 64, Raymundo Hernando 65, Antero Sarrael 64, Norman Relkin 65, Gloria Chaing 65, Michael Lin 65, Lisa Ravdin 65, Amanda Smith 66, Balebail Ashok Raj 66

section_name: Author Contributions

section_content: A. S. designed the study, conducted the experiments and prepared the manuscript. H. W. provided expert advice and contributed to methods development. A. M. provided supervision. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Data used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (www. loni. ucla. edu/ADNI). As such, the investigators within the ADNI contributed to the design and implementation of ADNI and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. A complete listing of ADNI investigators can be found at: http://adni. loni. usc. edu/wp-content/uploads/how_to_ apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List. pdf.
section_name: Author Contributions

section_name: Additional Information