A Bayesian approach to joint modeling of matrix‐valued imaging data and treatment outcome with applications to depression studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a unified Bayesian joint modeling framework for studying association between a binary treatment outcome and a baseline matrix-valued predictor. Specifically, a joint modeling approach relating an outcome to a matrix-valued predictor through a probabilistic formulation of multilinear principal component analysis is developed. This framework establishes a theoretical relationship between the outcome and the matrix-valued predictor, although the predictor is not explicitly expressed in the model. Simulation studies are provided showing that the proposed method is superior or competitive to other methods, such as a two-stage approach and a classical principal component regression in terms of both prediction accuracy and estimation of association; its advantage is most notable when the sample size is small and the dimensionality in the imaging covariate is large. Finally, our proposed joint modeling approach is shown to be a very promising tool in an application exploring the association between baseline electroencephalography data and a favorable response to treatment in a depression treatment study by achieving a substantial improvement in prediction accuracy in comparison to competing methods.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it