Insights from an autism imaging biomarker challenge: promises and threats to biomarker discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract MRI has been extensively used to identify anatomical and functional differences in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Yet, many of these findings have proven difficult to replicate because studies rely on small cohorts and are built on many complex, undisclosed, analytic choices. We conducted an international challenge to predict ASD diagnosis from MRI data, where we provided preprocessed anatomical and functional MRI data from > 2,000 individuals. Evaluation of the predictions was rigorously blinded. 146 challengers submitted prediction algorithms, which were evaluated at the end of the challenge using unseen data and an additional acquisition site. On the best algorithms, we studied the importance of MRI modalities, brain regions, and sample size. We found evidence that MRI could predict ASD diagnosis: the 10 best algorithms reliably predicted diagnosis with AUC∼0.80 – far superior to what can be currently obtained using genotyping data in cohorts 20-times larger. We observed that functional MRI was more important for prediction than anatomical MRI, and that increasing sample size steadily increased prediction accuracy, providing an efficient strategy to improve biomarkers. We also observed that despite a strong incentive to generalise to unseen data, model development on a given dataset faces the risk of overfitting: performing well in cross-validation on the data at hand, but not generalising. Finally, we were able to predict ASD diagnosis on an external sample added after the end of the challenge (EU-AIMS), although with a lower prediction accuracy (AUC=0.72). This indicates that despite being based on a large multisite cohort, our challenge still produced biomarkers fragile in the face of dataset shifts.
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 | 0.154 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".