MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983589939 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2011.5995651

Generalized group sparse classifiers with application in fMRI brain decoding

2011· article· en· W1983589939 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Ng, Rafeef Abugharbieh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceGroup (periodic table)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perplexing effects of noise and high feature dimensionality greatly complicate functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) classification. In this paper, we present a novel formulation for constructing “Generalized Group Sparse Classifiers” (GSSC) to alleviate these problems. In particular, we propose an extension of group LASSO that permits associations between features within (predefined) groups to be modeled. Integrating this new penalty into classifier learning enables incorporation of additional prior information beyond group structure. In the context of fMRI, GGSC provides a flexible means for modeling how the brain is functionally organized into specialized modules (i.e. groups of voxels) with spatially proximal voxels often displaying similar level of brain activity (i.e. feature associations). Applying GSSC to real fMRI data improved predictive performance over standard classifiers, while providing more neurologically interpretable classifier weight patterns. Our results thus demonstrate the importance of incorporating prior knowledge into classification problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207