Effects of MRI scanner manufacturers in classification tasks with deep learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning has become a leading subset of machine learning and has been successfully employed in diverse areas, ranging from natural language processing to medical image analysis. In medical imaging, researchers have progressively turned towards multi-center neuroimaging studies to address complex questions in neuroscience, leveraging larger sample sizes and aiming to enhance the accuracy of deep learning models. However, variations in image pixel/voxel characteristics can arise between centers due to factors including differences in magnetic resonance imaging scanners. Such variations create challenges, particularly inconsistent performance in machine learning-based approaches, often referred to as domain shift, where the trained models fail to achieve satisfactory or improved results when confronted with dissimilar test data. This study analyzes the performance of multiple disease classification tasks using multi-center MRI data obtained from three widely used scanner manufacturers (GE, Philips, and Siemens) across several deep learning-based networks. Furthermore, we investigate the efficacy of mitigating scanner vendor effects using ComBat-based harmonization techniques when applied to multi-center datasets of 3D structural MR images. Our experimental results reveal a substantial decline in classification performance when models trained on one type of scanner manufacturer are tested with data from different manufacturers. Moreover, despite applying ComBat-based harmonization, the harmonized images do not demonstrate any noticeable performance enhancement for disease classification tasks.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".