4.7 Article

Quantifying performance of machine learning methods for neuroimaging data

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages 351-365

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.082

Keywords

Machine learning; Neuroimaging; Regression algorithms; Reproducibility

Funding

  1. Irish Research Council [GOIPG/2014/418, EPSPG/2017/277]
  2. European Union [LSHM-CT-2007-037286]
  3. ERANID (Understanding the Interplay between Cultural, Biological and Subjective Factors in Drug Use Pathways) [PR-ST-0416-10004]
  4. BRIDGET (JPND: BRain Imaging, cognition Dementia and next generation GEnomics) [MR/N027558/1]
  5. FP7 project IMAGE-MEND [602450]
  6. FP7 project (MATRICS) [603016]
  7. Innovative Medicine Initiative Project EU-AIMS [115300-2]
  8. Medical Research Council Grant 'c-VEDA' (Consortium on Vulnerability to Externalizing Disorders and Addictions) [MR/N000390/1]
  9. Swedish Research Council FORMAS
  10. Medical Research Council [MR/R00465X/1]
  11. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London
  12. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [01GS08152, 01EV0711, eMED SysAlc01ZX1311A, Forschungsnetz AERIAL 01EE1406A, 01EE1406B]
  13. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SM 80/7-2, SFB 940/2]
  14. Medical Research Foundation
  15. ANR [AF12-NEUR0008-01-WM2NA, ANR-12-SAMA-0004]
  16. Fondation de France
  17. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  18. Mission Interministerielle de Lutte-contre-les-Drogues-et-les-Conduites-Addictives (MILDECA)
  19. Assistance-Publique-Hopitaux-de-Paris
  20. INSERM (interface grant), Paris Sud University IDEX 2012
  21. Science Foundation Ireland [16/ERCD/3797]
  22. U.S.A. (Axon, Testosterone and Mental Health during Adolescence) [RO1 MH085772-01A1]
  23. NIH [U54 EB020403]
  24. National Institute on Drug Abuse [T32DA043593, R01DA047119]
  25. Horizon 2020 [695313]
  26. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London
  27. National Institutes of Health
  28. Irish Research Council (IRC) [GOIPG/2014/418, EPSPG/2017/277] Funding Source: Irish Research Council (IRC)
  29. MRC [MR/N000390/1, MR/R00465X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Machine learning is increasingly being applied to neuroimaging data. However, most machine learning algorithms have not been designed to accommodate neuroimaging data, which typically has many more data points than subjects, in addition to multicollinearity and low signal-to-noise. Consequently, the relative efficacy of different machine learning regression algorithms for different types of neuroimaging data are not known. Here, we sought to quantify the performance of a variety of machine learning algorithms for use with neuroimaging data with various sample sizes, feature set sizes, and predictor effect sizes. The contribution of additional machine learning techniques - embedded feature selection and bootstrap aggregation (bagging) - to model performance was also quantified. Five machine learning regression methods - Gaussian Process Regression, Multiple Kernel Learning, Kernel Ridge Regression, the Elastic Net and Random Forest, were examined with both real and simulated MRI data, and in comparison to standard multiple regression. The different machine learning regression algorithms produced varying results, which depended on sample size, feature set size, and predictor effect size. When the effect size was large, the Elastic Net, Kernel Ridge Regression and Gaussian Process Regression performed well at most sample sizes and feature set sizes. However, when the effect size was small, only the Elastic Net made accurate predictions, but this was limited to analyses with sample sizes greater than 400. Random Forest also produced a moderate performance for small effect sizes, but could do so across all sample sizes. Machine learning techniques also improved prediction accuracy for multiple regression. These data provide empirical evidence for the differential performance of various machines on neuroimaging data, which are dependent on number of sample size, features and effect size.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available