A CCA and ICA-Based Mixture Model for Identifying Major Depression Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fMRI signals are usually filtered before processing and analyzing. This process can result in the loss of information carried by the higher frequency in the low frequency fluctuation. ICA and CCA are two classical methods in fMRI. ICA finds the statistically independent components of the observed data, however these components are usually physiologically uninterpretable without auxiliary procedures. CCA decomposes two sets of data into component pairs in some order, however these components may be mixtures of real signals and noise. In order to obtain statistically independent components and avoid the loss of information in the process of filtering, we propose a mixed model based on ICA and CCA, which does not need to filter the data. It is shown by the experiments that the new model has some advantages compared with the classical ICA and CCA. The components obtained by the new model is statistically independent. The useful information included in the low frequency fluctuation can be preserved. Experiments on synthetic data show satisfying results. As an application, this new model is used to design an algorithm to discriminate the major depressions from normal controls, with encouraging experimental 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".