Does size matter? The relationship between predictive power of single-subject morphometric networks to spatial scale and edge weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Network-level analysis based on anatomical, pairwise similarities (e.g., cortical thickness) has been gaining increasing attention recently. However, there has not been a systematic study of the impact of spatial scale and edge definitions on predictive performance. In order to obtain a clear understanding of relative performance, there is a need for systematic comparison. In this study, we present a histogram-based approach to construct subject-wise weighted networks that enable a principled comparison across different methods of network analysis. We design several weighted networks based on three large publicly available datasets and perform a robust evaluation of their predictive power under four levels of separability. An interesting insight generated is that changes in nodal size (spatial scale) have no significant impact on predictive power among the three classification experiments and two disease cohorts studied, i.e., mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease from ADNI, and Autism from the ABIDE dataset. We also release an open source python package called graynet to enable others to implement the novel network feature extraction algorithm, which is applicable to other modalities as well (due to its domain- and feature-agnostic nature) in diverse applications of connectivity research. In addition, the findings from the ADNI dataset are replicated in the AIBL dataset using an open source machine learning tool called neuropredict .
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 | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".