DeepFDR: A Deep Learning-based False Discovery Rate Control Method for Neuroimaging Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voxel-based multiple testing is widely used in neuroimaging data analysis. Traditional false discovery rate (FDR) control methods often ignore the spatial dependence among the voxel-based tests and thus suffer from substantial loss of testing power. While recent spatial FDR control methods have emerged, their validity and optimality remain questionable when handling the complex spatial dependencies of the brain. Concurrently, deep learning methods have revolutionized image segmentation, a task closely related to voxel-based multiple testing. In this paper, we propose DeepFDR, a novel spatial FDR control method that leverages unsupervised deep learning-based image segmentation to address the voxel-based multiple testing problem. Numerical studies, including comprehensive simulations and Alzheimer's disease FDG-PET image analysis, demonstrate DeepFDR's superiority over existing methods. DeepFDR not only excels in FDR control and effectively diminishes the false nondiscovery rate, but also boasts exceptional computational efficiency highly suited for tackling large-scale neuroimaging 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.576 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".