MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feature-aware Multi-task feature learning for Predicting Cognitive Outcomes in Alzheimer's disease

2019· article· en· W3004688515 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Cao, Shanshan Tang, Min Huang, Jinzhu Yang, Dazhe Zhao, Amine Trabelsi, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligenceCorrelationMachine learningMulti-task learningFeature (linguistics)CognitionNeuroimagingRegularization (linguistics)Task (project management)Feature learningPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning algorithms and multivariate data analysis methods have been widely utilized in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research in recent years. Predicting cognitive performance of subjects from neuroimage measures and identifying relevant imaging biomarkers are important research topics in the study of Alzheimer's disease. Multi-task based feature learning (MTFL) have been widely studied to select a discriminative feature subset from MRI features, and improve the performance by incorporating inherent correlations among multiple clinical cognitive measures. It is known that the brain imaging measures are often correlated with each other, and AD is closely related to the inter-correlation among different brain regions. However, the multi-task based feature learning (MTFL) method neglects the inherent correlation among brain imaging measures. We present a novel regularized multi-task learning approach via a joint sparsity-inducing regularization to effectively incorporate both a relatedness among multiple cognitive score prediction tasks and a useful inherent correlation between brain imaging measures by exploiting correlations among features. It allows the simultaneous selection of a common set of biomarkers for all tasks and the preservation of the inherent structure of imaging measures. The reported experiments on the ADNI dataset show that the proposed method is effective and promising.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207