SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Subspace corrected relevance learning with application in neuroimaging.

Artif Intell Med · 2024-01-24

DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2024.102786PMID: 38462286

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

In machine learning, data often comes from different sources, but combining them can introduce extraneous variation that affects both generalization and interpretability. For example, we investigate the classification of neurodegenerative diseases using FDG-PET data collected from multiple neuroimaging centers. However, data collected at different centers introduces unwanted variation due to differences in scanners, scanning protocols, and processing methods. To address this issue, we propose a two-step approach to limit the influence of center-dependent variation on the classification of healthy controls and early vs. late-stage Parkinson's disease patients. First, we train a Generalized Matrix Learning Vector Quantization (GMLVQ) model on healthy control data to identify a "relevance space" that distinguishes between centers. Second, we use this space to construct a correction matrix that restricts a second GMLVQ system's training on the diagnostic problem. We evaluate the effectiveness of this approach on the real-world multi-center datasets and simulated artificial dataset. Our results demonstrate that the approach produces machine learning systems with reduced bias - being more specific due to eliminating information related to center differences during the training process - and more informative relevance profiles that can be interpreted by medical experts. This method can be adapted to similar problems outside the neuroimaging domain, as long as an appropriate "relevance space" can be identified to construct the correction matrix.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.