Multi-Source Domain Adaptation Techniques for Mitigating Batch Effects: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has seen an increasing number of applications of deep learning (DL) techniques to biomedical fields, especially in neuroimaging-based analysis. Such DL-based methods are generally data-intensive and require a large number of training instances, which might be infeasible to acquire from a single acquisition site, especially for data, such as fMRI scans, due to the time and costs that they demand. We can attempt to address this issue by combining fMRI data from various sites, thereby creating a bigger heterogeneous dataset. Unfortunately, the inherent differences in the combined data, known as batch effects, often hamper learning a model. To mitigate this issue, techniques such as multi-source domain adaptation [Multi-source Domain Adversarial Networks (MSDA)] aim at learning an effective classification function that uses (learned) domain-invariant latent features. This article analyzes and compares the performance of various popular MSDA methods [MDAN, Domain AggRegation Networks (DARN), Multi-Domain Matching Networks (MDMN), and Moment Matching for MSDA (M3SDA)] at predicting different labels (illness, age, and sex) of images from two public rs-fMRI datasets: ABIDE 1and ADHD-200. It also evaluates the impact of various conditions such as class imbalance, the number of sites along with a comparison of the degree of adaptation of each of the methods, thereby presenting the effectiveness of MSDA models in neuroimaging-based applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".