MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972996185 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2940198

Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder Based on Eigenvalues of Brain Networks

2019· article· en· W2972996185 on OpenAlexafffund
Sakib Mostafa, Lingkai Tang, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderComputer scienceLinear discriminant analysisArtificial intelligenceAutismEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPattern recognition (psychology)Feature selectionFeature (linguistics)Feature extractionPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neuro dysfunction which causes the repetitive behavior and social instability of patients. Diagnosing ASD has been of great interest. However, due to the lack of discriminate differences between neuroimages of healthy persons and ASD patients, there has been no powerful diagnosis approach. In this study, we have designed brain network-based features for the diagnosis of ASD. Specifically, we have used the 264 regions based parcellation scheme to construct a brain network from a brain functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Then we have defined 264 raw brain features by the 264 eigenvalues of the Laplacian matrix of the brain network and another three features by network centralities. By applying a feature selection algorithm, we have obtained 64 discriminate features. Furthermore, we have trained several machine learning models for diagnosing ASD with our obtained features on ABIDE (Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange) dataset. With our derived features, the linear discriminant analysis has achieved the classification accuracy of 77.7%, which is better than the state-of-the-art 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207