MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Class imbalance should not throw you off balance: Choosing the right classifiers and performance metrics for brain decoding with imbalanced data

2023· article· en· W4382196087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalConcordia UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCourtois FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCanada Research ChairsCanada First Research Excellence FundCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsMcGill University
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Metric (unit)Artificial intelligenceBinary classificationDecoding methodsMachine learningClass (philosophy)Random forestPerformance metricReceiver operating characteristicElectroencephalographyBrain activity and meditationBinary numberSensitivity (control systems)Pattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineMathematicsPsychologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in cognitive, computational and clinical neuroscience. The reliable and efficient application of ML requires a sound understanding of its subtleties and limitations. Training ML models on datasets with imbalanced classes is a particularly common problem, and it can have severe consequences if not adequately addressed. With the neuroscience ML user in mind, this paper provides a didactic assessment of the class imbalance problem and illustrates its impact through systematic manipulation of data imbalance ratios in (i) simulated data and (ii) brain data recorded with electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Our results illustrate how the widely-used Accuracy (Acc) metric, which measures the overall proportion of successful predictions, yields misleadingly high performances, as class imbalance increases. Because Acc weights the per-class ratios of correct predictions proportionally to class size, it largely disregards the performance on the minority class. A binary classification model that learns to systematically vote for the majority class will yield an artificially high decoding accuracy that directly reflects the imbalance between the two classes, rather than any genuine generalizable ability to discriminate between them. We show that other evaluation metrics such as the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), and the less common Balanced Accuracy (BAcc) metric - defined as the arithmetic mean between sensitivity and specificity, provide more reliable performance evaluations for imbalanced data. Our findings also highlight the robustness of Random Forest (RF), and the benefits of using stratified cross-validation and hyperprameter optimization to tackle data imbalance. Critically, for neuroscience ML applications that seek to minimize overall classification error, we recommend the routine use of BAcc, which in the specific case of balanced data is equivalent to using standard Acc, and readily extends to multi-class settings. Importantly, we present a list of recommendations for dealing with imbalanced data, as well as open-source code to allow the neuroscience community to replicate and extend our observations and explore alternative approaches to coping with imbalanced data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it