A multiple hold-out framework for Sparse Partial Least Squares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supervised classification machine learning algorithms may have limitations when studying brain diseases with heterogeneous populations, as the labels might be unreliable. More exploratory approaches, such as Sparse Partial Least Squares (SPLS), may provide insights into the brain's mechanisms by finding relationships between neuroimaging and clinical/demographic data. The identification of these relationships has the potential to improve the current understanding of disease mechanisms, refine clinical assessment tools, and stratify patients. SPLS finds multivariate associative effects in the data by computing pairs of sparse weight vectors, where each pair is used to remove its corresponding associative effect from the data by matrix deflation, before computing additional pairs. NEW METHOD: We propose a novel SPLS framework which selects the adequate number of voxels and clinical variables to describe each associative effect, and tests their reliability by fitting the model to different splits of the data. As a proof of concept, the approach was applied to find associations between grey matter probability maps and individual items of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a clinical sample with various degrees of dementia. RESULTS: The framework found two statistically significant associative effects between subsets of brain voxels and subsets of the questions/tasks. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: SPLS was compared with its non-sparse version (PLS). The use of projection deflation versus a classical PLS deflation was also tested in both PLS and SPLS. CONCLUSIONS: SPLS outperformed PLS, finding statistically significant effects and providing higher correlation values in hold-out data. Moreover, projection deflation provided better results.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".