Improving the predictive potential of diffusion <scp>MRI</scp> in schizophrenia using normative models—Towards subject‐level classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion MRI studies consistently report group differences in white matter between individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and healthy controls. Nevertheless, the abnormalities found at the group-level are often not observed at the individual level. Among the different approaches aiming to study white matter abnormalities at the subject level, normative modeling analysis takes a step towards subject-level predictions by identifying affected brain locations in individual subjects based on extreme deviations from a normative range. Here, we leveraged a large harmonized diffusion MRI dataset from 512 healthy controls and 601 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, to study whether normative modeling can improve subject-level predictions from a binary classifier. To this aim, individual deviations from a normative model of standard (fractional anisotropy) and advanced (free-water) dMRI measures, were calculated by means of age and sex-adjusted z-scores relative to control data, in 18 white matter regions. Even though larger effect sizes are found when testing for group differences in z-scores than are found with raw values (p < .001), predictions based on summary z-score measures achieved low predictive power (AUC < 0.63). Instead, we find that combining information from the different white matter tracts, while using multiple imaging measures simultaneously, improves prediction performance (the best predictor achieved AUC = 0.726). Our findings suggest that extreme deviations from a normative model are not optimal features for prediction. However, including the complete distribution of deviations across multiple imaging measures improves prediction, and could aid in subject-level classification.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".