Machine learning for classification and prediction of brain diseases: recent advances and upcoming challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Machine learning is an artificial intelligence technique that allows computers to perform a task without being explicitly programmed. Machine learning can be used to assist diagnosis and prognosis of brain disorders. Although the earliest articles date from more than ten years ago, research increases at a very fast pace. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent works using machine learning for diagnosis have moved from classification of a given disease versus controls to differential diagnosis. Intense research has been devoted to the prediction of the future patient state. Although a lot of earlier works focused on neuroimaging as data source, the current trend is on the integration of multimodal data. In terms of targeted diseases, dementia remains dominant but approaches have been developed for a wide variety of neurological and psychiatric diseases. SUMMARY: Machine learning is extremely promising for assisting diagnosis and prognosis in brain disorders. Nevertheless, we argue that key challenges remain to be addressed by the community for bringing these tools in clinical routine: good practices regarding validation and reproducible research need to be more widely adopted; extensive generalization studies are required; interpretable models are needed to overcome the limitations of black-box approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".