MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141439367 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2007.896934

Bayesian Kernel Methods for Analysis of Functional Neuroimages

2007· article· en· W2141439367 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceKernel (algebra)Artificial intelligenceMaximum a posteriori estimationPattern recognition (psychology)Bayesian probabilityAlgorithmMachine learningMathematicsArtificial neural networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.337 · 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