Multimodal data fusion with artificial intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: A comprehensive review


Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive review of recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). AD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder whose complex pathology and heterogeneous clinical presentation make early and accurate diagnosis challenging. Traditional unimodal approaches that rely on a single source of information such as MRI, PET, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, or cognitive assessments often fail to capture the full spectrum of disease indicators. Recent advances in AI, particularly deep learning, has enabled multimodal data fusion that integrates complementary information from neuroimaging, biomarkers, genetics, and cognitive assessments. This review systematically analyzes state-of-the-art multimodal deep learning techniques for AD diagnosis, with an emphasis on fusion techniques that include early fusion, late fusion, adaptive weighting, and attention-based mechanisms. We compare and summarize findings across five major tasks: mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtyping, prediction of MCI-to-AD conversion, early detection, risk prediction, and assessment of disease severity. Emerging trends highlight the increasing use of graph convolutional networks, transformer architectures, and attention mechanisms that enhance diagnostic accuracy and interpretability. Despite these advances, key challenges remain, including limited sample sizes, missing modalities, data heterogeneity, and insufficient clinical validation. This review concludes by emphasizing the need for scalable, explainable, and clinically deployable AI frameworks capable of supporting precision diagnosis and enabling personalized treatment planning for individuals affected by AD.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].