A Framework for Comparison and Interpretation of Machine Learning Classifiers to Predict Autism on the ABIDE Dataset

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Yilan Dong, Dafnis Batalle, Maria Deprez
{"title":"A Framework for Comparison and Interpretation of Machine Learning Classifiers to Predict Autism on the ABIDE Dataset","authors":"Yilan Dong,&nbsp;Dafnis Batalle,&nbsp;Maria Deprez","doi":"10.1002/hbm.70190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ~1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures, and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), autoencoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities, and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in the published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained when using ensemble models (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), leading to an accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.77 using GCN classifiers. However, an SVM classifier performed with an accuracy of 70.1% and AUC = 0.77, just marginally below GCN, and significant differences were not found when comparing different algorithms under the same testing conditions (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability in selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. The code is available at https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.</p>","PeriodicalId":13019,"journal":{"name":"Human Brain Mapping","volume":"46 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hbm.70190","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Brain Mapping","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.70190","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ~1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures, and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), autoencoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities, and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in the published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained when using ensemble models (p < 0.001), leading to an accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.77 using GCN classifiers. However, an SVM classifier performed with an accuracy of 70.1% and AUC = 0.77, just marginally below GCN, and significant differences were not found when comparing different algorithms under the same testing conditions (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability in selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. The code is available at https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.

Abstract Image

在 ABIDE 数据集上比较和解释预测自闭症的机器学习分类器的框架
自闭症是一种影响约1%人口的神经发育疾病。最近,机器学习模型已经被训练成使用自闭症患者的神经成像特征对他们进行分类,尽管这些模型的表现在文献中有所不同。实验设置的差异阻碍了不同机器学习方法的直接比较。在本文中,使用功能连接矩阵、结构体积测量和来自自闭症脑成像数据交换(ABIDE)数据集的表型信息,对该领域中使用最广泛和表现最好的五个机器学习模型进行了训练,以对自闭症参与者和典型发育(TD)参与者进行分类。在相同的评价标准下,对其绩效进行比较。实现的模型包括:图卷积网络(GCN)、边变分图卷积网络(EV-GCN)、全连接网络(FCN)、自动编码器后全连接网络(AE-FCN)和支持向量机(SVM)。我们的结果表明,所有模型的表现相似,实现了70%左右的分类精度。我们的研究结果表明,不同的纳入标准、数据模式和评估管道,而不是不同的机器学习模型,可能解释发表文献中准确性的变化。在我们的框架中,使用集成模型获得了最高的准确率(p < 0.001),使用GCN分类器的准确率为72.2%,AUC = 0.77。然而,SVM分类器的准确率为70.1%,AUC = 0.77,略低于GCN,在相同的测试条件下,不同算法的比较没有发现显著差异(p > 0.05)。此外,我们还使用SmoothGrad解释方法研究了不同机器学习模型识别的特征的稳定性。FCN模型在选择有助于模型决策的相关特征方面表现出最高的稳定性。代码可在https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Brain Mapping
Human Brain Mapping 医学-核医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
401
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Brain Mapping publishes peer-reviewed basic, clinical, technical, and theoretical research in the interdisciplinary and rapidly expanding field of human brain mapping. The journal features research derived from non-invasive brain imaging modalities used to explore the spatial and temporal organization of the neural systems supporting human behavior. Imaging modalities of interest include positron emission tomography, event-related potentials, electro-and magnetoencephalography, magnetic resonance imaging, and single-photon emission tomography. Brain mapping research in both normal and clinical populations is encouraged. Article formats include Research Articles, Review Articles, Clinical Case Studies, and Technique, as well as Technological Developments, Theoretical Articles, and Synthetic Reviews. Technical advances, such as novel brain imaging methods, analyses for detecting or localizing neural activity, synergistic uses of multiple imaging modalities, and strategies for the design of behavioral paradigms and neural-systems modeling are of particular interest. The journal endorses the propagation of methodological standards and encourages database development in the field of human brain mapping.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信