Brain status modeling with non-negative projective dictionary learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate prediction of individuals' brain age is critical to establish a baseline for normal brain development. This study proposes to model brain development with a novel non-negative projective dictionary learning (NPDL) approach, which learns a discriminative representation of multi-modal neuroimaging data for predicting brain age. Our approach encodes the variability of subjects in different age groups using separate dictionaries, projecting features into a low-dimensional manifold such that information is preserved only for the corresponding age group. The proposed framework improves upon previous discriminative dictionary learning methods by incorporating orthogonality and non-negativity constraints, which remove representation redundancy and perform implicit feature selection. We study brain development on multi-modal brain imaging data from the PING dataset (N = 841, age = 3-21 years). The proposed analysis uses our NDPL framework to predict the age of subjects based on cortical measures from T1-weighted MRI and connectome from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). We also investigate the association between age prediction and cognition, and study the influence of gender on prediction accuracy. Experimental results demonstrate the usefulness of NDPL for modeling brain development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".