4.8 Article

Deep learning encodes robust discriminative neuroimaging representations to outperform standard machine learning

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20655-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01EB006841, RF1AG063153, R01EB020407]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent findings suggest that when trained following prevalent deep learning practices, deep learning methods significantly outperform standard machine learning methods in brain imaging data analysis by encoding robust discriminative brain representations.
Recent critical commentaries unfavorably compare deep learning (DL) with standard machine learning (SML) approaches for brain imaging data analysis. However, their conclusions are often based on pre-engineered features depriving DL of its main advantage - representation learning. We conduct a large-scale systematic comparison profiled in multiple classification and regression tasks on structural MRI images and show the importance of representation learning for DL. Results show that if trained following prevalent DL practices, DL methods have the potential to scale particularly well and substantially improve compared to SML methods, while also presenting a lower asymptotic complexity in relative computational time, despite being more complex. We also demonstrate that DL embeddings span comprehensible task-specific projection spectra and that DL consistently localizes task-discriminative brain biomarkers. Our findings highlight the presence of nonlinearities in neuroimaging data that DL can exploit to generate superior task-discriminative representations for characterizing the human brain. Recent critical commentaries unfavorably compare deep learning (DL) with standard machine learning (SML) for brain imaging data analysis. Here, the authors show that if trained following prevalent DL practices, DL methods substantially improve compared to SML methods by encoding robust discriminative brain representations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据