Back

Tracing high transductive cohort AUC to same-site supervision in a site-aware population GNN for multisite fMRI

Wan, K.; Chen, Z.; Liu, G.; Yu, B.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, F.; Zhong, N.; Kuai, H.

2026-09-21 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.15.751719 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Population-graph models can use cohort-level context, complicating interpretation of strong multisite neuroimaging performance. We investigated which information pathways accounted for high transductive cohort discrimination in a site-aware heterogeneous population graph neural network for autism classification. Using a frozen ABIDE-I cohort (871 participants, 20 sites) and evaluation protocol, we applied controlled graph, feature, supervision, and architecture interventions to a clean-room re-implementation across C-PAC and NIAK preprocessing pipelines. Cohort out-of-fold AUC was approximately 0.94. A site-only graph retained similarly high discrimination (0.948 versus 0.941 for the full model), with no statistically significant difference detected. Removing same-site supervision under a site-wise intervention reduced AUC to 0.480, whereas a supervision-budget control retaining same-site supervision achieved 0.921. Among the alternative heads evaluated, the high cohort AUC was observed only with the sex-heterogeneous dual-channel head; a canonical topology-only Parisot-GCN did not reproduce it. A demographic classifier using site, sex, and their interaction achieved a best pooled AUC of 0.51. Under leave-one-site-out evaluation, AUC was 0.522 for C-PAC and 0.532 for NIAK, with confidence intervals including 0.5 and no clear evidence of unseen-site discrimination; an imaging-only reference achieved 0.653 and 0.588. Because leave-one-site-out evaluation jointly changes supervision availability, target-site topology, and training-domain composition, the decrease cannot be attributed to a single factor. These findings distinguish cohort-visible transductive performance from unseen-site generalization and motivate explicit site-only, no-graph, and site-held-out controls.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.