Reproducible comparison and interpretation of machine learning classifiers to predict autism on the ABIDE multimodal dataset
Dong, Y.; Batalle, D.; Deprez, M.
Show 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), auto-encoder 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 published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained by an ensemble of GCN models trained on combination of functional MRI and structural MRI features, reaching classification accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.78 on the test set. The combined structural and functional modalities exhibited higher predictive ability compared to using single modality features alone. Ensemble methods were found to be helpful to improve the performance of the models. 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 selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. Code available at: https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Building Models of Functional Interactions Among Brain Domains that Encode Varying Information Complexity: A Schizophrenia Case Study 95%
- Towards Multi-Brain Decoding in Autism: A Self-Supervised Learning Approach 95%
- Regularized Bagged Canonical Component Analysis for Multiclass Learning in Brain Imaging 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Extended Invariant Information Clustering is Effective for Leave-One- Site-Out Cross-Validation in Resting State Functional Connectivity Modelling 97%
- Contrastive Self-supervised Learning for Neurodegenerative Disorder Classification 93%
- NeuroRA: A Python Toolbox of Representational Analysis from Multi-modal Neural Data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A classification-based approach to estimate the number of resting fMRI dynamic functional connectivity states 95%
- BrainNET: Inference of brain network topology using Machine Learning 95%
- A novel method for tri-clustering dynamic functional network connectivity (dFNC) identifies significant schizophrenia effects across multiple states in distinct subgroups of individuals 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting sex, age, general cognition and mental health with machine learning on brain structural connectomes 94%
- Towards an informed choice of diffusion MRI image contrasts for cerebellar segmentation 94%
- The Impact of Graph Construction Scheme and Community Detection Algorithm on the Reliability of Community and Hub Identification in Structural Brain Networks 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.