Learnable Pooling in Graph Convolution Networks for Brain Surface Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain surface analysis is essential to neuroscience, however, the complex geometry of the brain cortex hinders computational methods for this task. The difficulty arises from a discrepancy between 3D imaging data, which is represented in Euclidean space, and the non-Euclidean geometry of the highly-convoluted brain surface. Recent advances in machine learning have enabled the use of neural networks for non-Euclidean spaces. These facilitate the learning of surface data, yet pooling strategies often remain constrained to a single fixed-graph. This paper proposes a new learnable graph pooling method for processing multiple surface-valued data to output subject-based information. The proposed method innovates by learning an intrinsic aggregation of graph nodes based on graph spectral embedding. We illustrate the advantages of our approach with in-depth experiments on two large-scale benchmark datasets. The flexibility of the pooling strategy is evaluated on four different prediction tasks, namely, subject-sex classification, regression of cortical region sizes, classification of Alzheimer's disease stages, and brain age regression. Our experiments demonstrate the superiority of our learnable pooling approach compared to other pooling techniques for graph convolution networks, with results improving the state-of-the-art in brain surface analysis.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".