Table 5 Comparisons with other volume-based methods. The data with a number of subjects in each disease group consisted of: (CN, AD) for CN vs. AD and (CN, MCI) for CN vs. MCI task. The performance of the model is evaluated using the following metrics: balanced accuracy (BACC), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and area under the curve (AUC).

From: Multimodal surface-based transformer model for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

Task

Methods

Modality

Data

Input size

BACC

SEN

SPE

AUC

CN vs. AD

Li et al. (2018)8

MRI

(229, 199)

(98 \(\times\) 78 \(\times\) 76)

0.894

0.879

0.908

0.924

Cui and Liu (2019)9

MRI

(223, 192)

(62 \(\times\) 48 \(\times\) 58)

0.921

0.906

0.937

0.969

Liu et al. (2020)11

MRI

(119, 97)

(64 \(\times\) 48 \(\times\) 64)

0.887

0.866

0.908

0.925

Zhang et al. (2022)10

FDG

(184, 146)

(128 × 128 × 128)

0.972

0.960

0.985

0.967

Qiu et al. (2024)36

MRI, FDG

(317, 290)

(128 \(\times\) 128 \(\times\) 128)

0.964

0.974

0.954

0.985

Chen et al. (2024)37

MRI, A\(\beta\)

(283, 144)

0.936

0.890

0.982

0.970

Zhang et al. (2023)25

MRI

(360, 345)

0.900

0.833

0.967

0.926

Wee et al. (2019)16

MRI

(654, 965)

0.890

0.914

0.865

Ours

MRI,A\(\beta\),Tau

(258, 55)

(40962 \(\times\) 5)

0.937

0.889

0.984

0.943

Ours

MRI, FDG

(101, 84)

(40962\(\times\) 4)

0.962

0.976

0.948

0.969

CN vs. MCI

Li et al. (2018)8

MRI

(229, 403)

(98\(\times\) 78 \(\times\) 76)

0.691

0.866

0.515

0.775

Cui and Liu (2019)9

MRI

(223, 396)

(62 \(\times\) 48 \(\times\) 58)

0.737

0.773

0.699

0.777

Liu et al. (2020)11

MRI

(119, 233)

(64\(\times\) 48 \(\times\) 64)

0.746

0.795

0.698

0.775

Zhang et al. (2022)10

FDG

(184, 347)

(128 \(\times\) 128 \(\times\) 128)

0.675

0.775

0.575

0.744

Qiu et al. (2024)36

MRI, FDG

(317, 506)

(128 \(\times\) 128 \(\times\) 128)

0.736

0.730

0.730

0.761

Chen et al. (2024)37

MRI, A\(\beta\)

(283, 330)

0.669

0.697

0.640

0.719

Zhang et al. (2023)25

MRI

(360, 613)

0.698

0.891

0.504

0.738

Wee et al. (2019)16

MRI

(661, 1210)

0.660

0.619

0.701

Ours

MRI,A\(\beta\),Tau

(258, 159)

(40962 \(\times\) 5)

0.759

0.684

0.833

0.764

Ours

MRI, FDG

(101, 208)

(40962 \(\times\) 4)

0.788

0.692

0.884

0.805