Back

Quantum kernel support vector machines for trabecular bone classification: comparing feature reduction strategies on synthetic micro-CT data

Florez, I.; Farhat, A.; Le Houx, J.; Altamura, E.; Tozzi, G.

2026-05-07 biophysics
10.64898/2026.05.04.722627 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Quantum kernel methods offer a potential advantage for classification tasks in high-dimensional feature spaces, yet their practical benefit critically depends on how input features are prepared. We compare five dimensionality reduction strategies--principal component analysis (PCA), Gaussian random projection (RP Gaussian), sparse random projection (RP Sparse), partial least squares (PLS), and uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) -- as pre-processing steps for quantum kernel support vector machines (SVMs) applied to trabecular bone classification from synthetic micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) data. Using a custom procedural generator based on Gaussian random field zero-crossings, we produced 500 synthetic trabecular bone volumes with controlled morphometric properties such as bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), number (Tb.N) and spacing (Tb.Sp). Texture features extracted from grayscale slices are reduced to 8-dimensional quantum circuit inputs via each method, then classified using both classical radial basis function (RBF)-SVMs and quantum kernel SVMs with ZZ feature maps on a statevector simulator, both evaluated with 5 x 5 repeated stratified cross-validation (25 folds). Our results show that UMAP is the only reduction method where the quantum kernel remains competitive with the classical baseline. Under repeated cross-validation, UMAP showed a +0.032 accuracy gap favouring the quantum kernel (Dietterich 5 x 2 CV p = 0.177); however, validation on 10 fully independent datasets--each with independently generated samples, separate reduction fits, and separate kernel matrices -- reversed the sign to -0.030 (paired t-test p = 0.123; Wilcoxon p = 0.193; quantum wins 3/10 datasets), indicating that the apparent advantage was likely inflated by fold dependence. Nevertheless, UMAPs gap remains small and non-significant in both analyses, whereas all linear methods (PCA, RP Gaussian, PLS) show substantial quantum deficits of -0.090 to -0.116 across BV/TV classification, with PCA and PLS remaining significant under corrected tests (5 x 2 CV p = 0.004 and p = 0.007 respectively). We additionally evaluate quantum kernel ridge regression for continuous morphometric prediction, finding that ZZ quantum kernels fail uniformly at regression (negative R2 for all methods except PLS at 4 qubits), suggesting that the ZZ kernel captures decision boundaries but not smooth metric structure. These findings provide practical guidance for feature engineering in near-term quantum machine learning pipelines and demonstrate that the choice of dimensionality reduction can determine whether quantum kernels remain competitive with classical baselines.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.6%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.3%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.3%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.4%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 24%
2.9%
7
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.5%
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
10
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
13
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
14
IUCrJ
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
16
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
Biophysical Reports
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
20
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
22
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
The European Physical Journal Plus
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
26
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
207 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology
54 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
29
European Biophysics Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
30
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%