Deep learning for brains?: Different linear and nonlinear scaling in UK Biobank brain images vs. machine-learning datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, deep learning has unlocked unprecedented success in various domains, especially in image, text, and speech processing. These breakthroughs may hold promise for neuroscience and especially for brain-imaging investigators who start to analyze thousands of participants. However, deep learning is only beneficial if the data have nonlinear relationships and if they are exploitable at currently available sample sizes. We systematically profiled the performance of deep models, kernel models, and linear models as a function of sample size on UK Biobank brain images against established machine learning references. On MNIST and Zalando Fashion, prediction accuracy consistently improved when escalating from linear models to shallow-nonlinear models, and further improved when switching to deep-nonlinear models. The more observations were available for model training, the greater the performance gain we saw. In contrast, using structural or functional brain scans, simple linear models performed on par with more complex, highly parameterized models in age/sex prediction across increasing sample sizes. In fact, linear models kept improving as the sample size approached ∼10,000 participants. Our results indicate that the increase in performance of linear models with additional data does not saturate at the limit of current feasibility. Yet, nonlinearities of common brain scans remain largely inaccessible to both kernel and deep learning methods at any examined scale.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".