MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415996186 · doi:10.1002/sim.70309

Identification of Regions of Interest in Neuroimaging Data With Irregular Boundary Based on Semiparametric Transformation Models and Interval‐Censored Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4415996186 on OpenAlexafffund
Chun Yin Lee, Haolun Shi, Da Ma, Mirza Faisal Beg, Jiguo Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBivariate analysisCovariateIdentification (biology)NeuroimagingNonparametric statisticsBoundary (topology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Transformation (genetics)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that leads to memory loss, cognitive decline, and behavioral changes, without a known cure. Neuroimages are often collected alongside the covariates at baseline to forecast the prognosis of the patients. Identifying regions of interest within the neuroimages associated with disease progression is thus of significant clinical importance. One major complication in such analysis is that the domain of the brain area in neuroimages is irregular. Another complication is that the time to AD is interval-censored, as the event can only be observed between two revisit time points. To address these complications, we propose to model the imaging predictors via bivariate splines over triangulation and incorporate the imaging predictors in a flexible class of semiparametric transformation models. The regions of interest can then be identified by maximizing a penalized likelihood. A computationally efficient expectation-maximization algorithm is devised for parameter estimation. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed method. An illustration with the AD Neuroimaging Initiative dataset is provided.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207