Comparing within‐subject classification and regularization methods in fMRI for large and small sample sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, a variety of multivariate classifier models have been applied to fMRI, with different modeling assumptions. When classifying high-dimensional fMRI data, we must also regularize to improve model stability, and the interactions between classifier and regularization techniques are still being investigated. Classifiers are usually compared on large, multisubject fMRI datasets. However, it is unclear how classifier/regularizer models perform for within-subject analyses, as a function of signal strength and sample size. We compare four standard classifiers: Linear and Quadratic Discriminants, Logistic Regression and Support Vector Machines. Classification was performed on data in the linear kernel (covariance) feature space, and classifiers are tuned with four commonly-used regularizers: Principal Component and Independent Component Analysis, and penalization of kernel features using L₁ and L₂ norms. We evaluated prediction accuracy (P) and spatial reproducibility (R) of all classifier/regularizer combinations on single-subject analyses, over a range of three different block task contrasts and sample sizes for a BOLD fMRI experiment. We show that the classifier model has a small impact on signal detection, compared to the choice of regularizer. PCA maximizes reproducibility and global SNR, whereas Lp -norms tend to maximize prediction. ICA produces low reproducibility, and prediction accuracy is classifier-dependent. However, trade-offs in (P,R) depend partly on the optimization criterion, and PCA-based models are able to explore the widest range of (P,R) values. These trends are consistent across task contrasts and data sizes (training samples range from 6 to 96 scans). In addition, the trends in classifier performance are consistent for ROI-based classifier analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".