MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570913926 · doi:10.1186/s12880-016-0172-6

Dimensionality reduction-based fusion approaches for imaging and non-imaging biomedical data: concepts, workflow, and use-cases

2017· article· en· W2570913926 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Satish E. Viswanath, Pallavi Tiwari, George Lee, Anant Madabhushi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Imaging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition ActivityCongressionally Directed Medical Research ProgramsNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenentechNational Institutes of HealthDOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research ProgramIXICOWallace H. Coulter FoundationH. Lundbeck A/SNational Cancer InstituteServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaNational Science FoundationCase Western Reserve UniversityBristol-Myers SquibbCleveland ClinicF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve UniversityAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkflowContext (archaeology)Dimensionality reductionSensor fusionArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)Data miningData integrationMachine learningModalitiesDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With a wide array of multi-modal, multi-protocol, and multi-scale biomedical data being routinely acquired for disease characterization, there is a pressing need for quantitative tools to combine these varied channels of information. The goal of these integrated predictors is to combine these varied sources of information, while improving on the predictive ability of any individual modality. A number of application-specific data fusion methods have been previously proposed in the literature which have attempted to reconcile the differences in dimensionalities and length scales across different modalities. Our objective in this paper was to help identify metholodological choices that need to be made in order to build a data fusion technique, as it is not always clear which strategy is optimal for a particular problem. As a comprehensive review of all possible data fusion methods was outside the scope of this paper, we have focused on fusion approaches that employ dimensionality reduction (DR). METHODS: In this work, we quantitatively evaluate 4 non-overlapping existing instantiations of DR-based data fusion, within 3 different biomedical applications comprising over 100 studies. These instantiations utilized different knowledge representation and knowledge fusion methods, allowing us to examine the interplay of these modules in the context of data fusion. The use cases considered in this work involve the integration of (a) radiomics features from T2w MRI with peak area features from MR spectroscopy for identification of prostate cancer in vivo, (b) histomorphometric features (quantitative features extracted from histopathology) with protein mass spectrometry features for predicting 5 year biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients, and (c) volumetric measurements on T1w MRI with protein expression features to discriminate between patients with and without Alzheimers' Disease. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results in these specific use cases indicated that the use of kernel representations in conjunction with DR-based fusion may be most effective, as a weighted multi-kernel-based DR approach resulted in the highest area under the ROC curve of over 0.8. By contrast non-optimized DR-based representation and fusion methods yielded the worst predictive performance across all 3 applications. Our results suggest that when the individual modalities demonstrate relatively poor discriminability, many of the data fusion methods may not yield accurate, discriminatory representations either. In summary, to outperform the predictive ability of individual modalities, methodological choices for data fusion must explicitly account for the sparsity of and noise in the feature space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical ImagingSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207