Significant Anatomy Detection Through Sparse Classification: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a comparative study for discriminative anatomy detection in high dimensional neuroimaging data. While most studies solve this problem using mass univariate approaches, recent works show better accuracy and variable selection using a sparse classification model. Two types of image-based regularization methods have been proposed in the literature based on either a Graph Net (GN) model or a total variation (TV) model. These studies showed increased classification accuracy and interpretability of results when using image-based regularization, but did not look at the accuracy and quality of the recovered significant regions. In this paper, we theoretically prove bounds on the recovered sparse coefficients and the corresponding selected image regions in four models (two based on GN penalty and two based on TV penalty). Practically, we confirm the theoretical findings by measuring the accuracy of selected regions compared with ground truth on simulated data. We also evaluate the stability of recovered regions over cross-validation folds using real MRI data. Our findings show that the TV penalty is superior to the GN model. In addition, we showed that adding an l2 penalty improves the accuracy of estimated coefficients and selected significant regions for the both types of models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".