Bayesian Kernel Methods for Analysis of Functional Neuroimages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an approach to analyzing functional neuroimages in which 1) regions of neuronal activation are described by a superposition of spatial kernel functions, the parameters of which are estimated from the data and 2) the presence of activation is detected by means of a generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT). Kernel methods have become a staple of modern machine learning. Herein, we show that these techniques show promise for neuroimage analysis. In an on-off design, we model the spatial activation pattern as a sum of an unknown number of kernel functions of unknown location, amplitude, and/or size. We employ two Bayesian methods of estimating the kernel functions. The first is a maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation method based on a Reversible-Jump Markov-chain Monte-Carlo (RJMCMC) algorithm that searches for both the appropriate model complexity and parameter values. The second is a relevance vector machine (RVM), a kernel machine that is known to be effective in controlling model complexity (and thus discouraging overfitting). In each method, after estimating the activation pattern, we test for local activation using a GLRT. We evaluate the results using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for simulated neuroimaging data and example results for real fMRI data. We find that, while RVM and RJMCMC both produce good results, RVM requires far less computation time, and thus appears to be the more promising of the two approaches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".