Julearn: an easy-to-use library for leakage-free evaluation and inspection of ML models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fast-paced development of machine learning (ML) and its increasing adoption in research challenge researchers without extensive training in ML. In neuroscience, ML can help understand brain-behavior relationships, diagnose diseases and develop biomarkers using data from sources like magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography. Primarily, ML builds models to make accurate predictions on unseen data. Researchers evaluate models' performance and generalizability using techniques such as cross-validation (CV). However, choosing a CV scheme and evaluating an ML pipeline is challenging and, if done improperly, can lead to overestimated results and incorrect interpretations. Here, we created julearn, an open-source Python library allowing researchers to design and evaluate complex ML pipelines without encountering common pitfalls. We present the rationale behind julearn's design, its core features, and showcase three examples of previously-published research projects. Julearn simplifies the access to ML providing an easy-to-use environment. With its design, unique features, simple interface, and practical documentation, it poses as a useful Python-based library for research projects.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Software About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Software About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".