Hold‐out validation for the assessment of stability and reliability of multivariable regression demonstrated with magnetic resonance imaging of patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroscience studies are very often tasked with identifying measurable differences between two groups of subjects, typically one group with a pathological condition and one group representing control subjects. It is often expected that the measurements acquired for comparing groups are also affected by a variety of additional patient characteristics such as sex, age, and comorbidities. Multivariable regression (MVR) is a statistical analysis technique commonly employed in neuroscience studies to "control for" or "adjust for" secondary effects (such as sex, age, and comorbidities) in order to ensure that the main study findings are focused on actual differences between the groups of interest associated with the condition under investigation. It is common practice in the neuroscience literature to utilize MVR to control for secondary effects; however, at present, it is not typically possible to assess whether the MVR adjustments correct for more error than they introduce. In common neuroscience practice, MVR models are not validated and no attempt to characterize deficiencies in the MVR model is made. In this article, we demonstrate how standard hold-out validation techniques (commonly used in machine learning analyses) that involve repeatedly randomly dividing datasets into training and testing samples can be adapted to the assessment of stability and reliability of MVR models with a publicly available neurological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dataset of patients with schizophrenia. Results demonstrate that MVR can introduce measurement error up to 30.06% and, on average across all considered measurements, introduce 9.84% error on this dataset. When hold-out validated MVR does not agree with the results of the standard use of MVR, the use of MVR in the given application is unstable. Thus, this paper helps evaluate the extent to which the simplistic use of MVR introduces study error in neuroscientific analyses with an analysis of patients with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.050 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".