MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105775214 · doi:10.1109/42.925291

Penalized discriminant analysis of [/sup 15/O]-water PET brain images with prediction error selection of smoothness and regularization hyperparameters

2001· article· en· W2105775214 on OpenAlexaff
Rafal Kustra, Stephen C. Strother

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsHyperparameterMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCovarianceSmoothnessSmoothingPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceCovariance matrixRegularization (linguistics)AlgorithmStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a flexible, comprehensive approach for analysis of [15O]-water positron emission tomography (PET) brain images using a penalized version of linear discriminant analysis (PDA). We applied it to scans from 20 subjects (eight scans/subject) performing a finger movement task and analyzed: 1) two classes to obtain a covariance-normalized baseline-activation image, and 2) eight classes for the mean within subject temporal structure which contained baseline-activation and time-dependent changes in a two-dimensional canonical subspace. We imposed spatial smoothness on the resulting image(s) by expanding it in five tensor-product B-spline (TPS) bases of varying smoothness, and further regularized with a ridge-type penalty on the noise covariance matrix. The discrimination approach of PDA provides a probabilistic framework within which prediction error (PE) estimates are derived. We used these to optimize over TPS bases and a ridge hyperparameter (expressed as equivalent degrees of freedom, EDF). We obtained unbiased, low variance PE estimates using modern resampling tools (.632+ Bootstrap and cross validation), and compared PDA of 1) TPS-projected, mean-normalized and unnormalized scans and 2) mean-normalized scans with and without additional presmoothing. By examining the tradeoffs between PE and EDF, as a function of basis selection and image smoothing we demonstrate the utility of PDA, the PE framework, and the relationship between singular value decomposition and smooth TPS bases in the analysis of functional neuroimages.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207