在 ABIDE 多模态数据集上对预测自闭症的机器学习分类器进行可重复的比较和解释

Yilan Dong, Dafnis Batalle, Maria Deprez
{"title":"在 ABIDE 多模态数据集上对预测自闭症的机器学习分类器进行可重复的比较和解释","authors":"Yilan Dong, Dafnis Batalle, Maria Deprez","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.04.24313055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ∼1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), auto-encoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained by an ensemble of GCN models trained on combination of functional MRI and structural MRI features, reaching classification accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.78 on the test set. The combined structural and functional modalities exhibited higher predictive ability compared to using single modality features alone. Ensemble methods were found to be helpful to improve the performance of the models. Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. Code available at: https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.","PeriodicalId":501367,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Neurology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproducible comparison and interpretation of machine learning classifiers to predict autism on the ABIDE multimodal dataset\",\"authors\":\"Yilan Dong, Dafnis Batalle, Maria Deprez\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.09.04.24313055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ∼1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), auto-encoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained by an ensemble of GCN models trained on combination of functional MRI and structural MRI features, reaching classification accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.78 on the test set. The combined structural and functional modalities exhibited higher predictive ability compared to using single modality features alone. Ensemble methods were found to be helpful to improve the performance of the models. Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. Code available at: https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Neurology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.04.24313055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.04.24313055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自闭症是一种神经发育性疾病,患者占总人口的 1%。最近,人们利用自闭症患者的神经影像特征训练机器学习模型对其进行分类,但这些模型的性能在文献中不尽相同。实验设置的差异阻碍了对不同机器学习方法的直接比较。本文利用自闭症脑成像数据交换(ABIDE)数据集中的功能连接矩阵、结构容积测量和表型信息,训练了五种该领域应用最广泛、表现最好的机器学习模型,以对自闭症患者和典型发育(TD)患者进行分类。在相同的评估标准下对它们的性能进行了比较。实施的模型包括:图卷积网络(GCN)、边缘变异图卷积网络(EV-GCN)、全连接网络(FCN)、自动编码器后的全连接网络(AE-FCN)和支持向量机(SVM)。我们的结果表明,所有模型的表现类似,分类准确率都在 70% 左右。我们的结果表明,不同的纳入标准、数据模式和评估管道,而不是不同的机器学习模型,可以解释已发表文献中准确率的差异。在我们的框架中,根据功能性 MRI 和结构性 MRI 特征组合训练的 GCN 模型集合获得了最高的准确率,在测试集上的分类准确率达到 72.2%,AUC = 0.78。与单独使用单一模式特征相比,结构和功能模式的组合表现出更高的预测能力。研究发现,组合方法有助于提高模型的性能。此外,我们还使用 SmoothGrad 解释法研究了不同机器学习模型所识别特征的稳定性。在选择有助于模型决策的相关特征时,FCN 模型表现出最高的稳定性。代码见:https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reproducible comparison and interpretation of machine learning classifiers to predict autism on the ABIDE multimodal dataset
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ∼1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), auto-encoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained by an ensemble of GCN models trained on combination of functional MRI and structural MRI features, reaching classification accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.78 on the test set. The combined structural and functional modalities exhibited higher predictive ability compared to using single modality features alone. Ensemble methods were found to be helpful to improve the performance of the models. Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. Code available at: https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Biological markers of brain network connectivity and pain sensitivity distinguish low coping from high coping Veterans with persistent post-traumatic headache Association of Item-Level Responses to Cognitive Function Index with Tau Pathology and Hippocampal volume in The A4 Study EpiSemoLLM: A Fine-tuned Large Language Model for Epileptogenic Zone Localization Based on Seizure Semiology with a Performance Comparable to Epileptologists Selective effects of dopaminergic and noradrenergic degeneration on cognition in Parkinson's disease The Relationship Between Electrodermal Activity and Cardiac Troponin in Patients with Paroxysmal Sympathetic Hyperactivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1