ArticleNeuroImage2015
Relevant feature set estimation with a knock-out strategy and random forests.
Article in NeuroImage, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors and machine learning model for predicting hospitalization outcomes in geriatric patients with dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2022Article
- Random forest model for feature-based Alzheimer's disease conversion prediction from early mild cognitive impairment subjects.PloS one · 2021Article
- Random forest prediction of Alzheimer's disease using pairwise selection from time series data.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Random Forests Based Group Importance Scores and Their Statistical Interpretation: Application for Alzheimer's Disease.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Recent publications from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: Reviewing progress toward improved AD clinical trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2017Review
- A Bayesian probit model with spatially varying coefficients for brain decoding using fMRI data.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Group analysis of neuroimaging data is a vital tool for identifying anatomical and functional variations related to diseases as well as normal biological processes. The analyses are often performed on a large number of highly correlated measurements using a relatively smaller number of samples. Despite the correlation structure, the most widely used approach is to analyze the data using univariate methods followed by post-hoc corrections that try to account for the data's multivariate nature. Although widely used, this approach may fail to recover from the adverse effects of the initial analysis when local effects are not strong. Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) is a powerful alternative to the univariate approach for identifying relevant variations. Jointly analyzing all the measures, MVPA techniques can detect global effects even when individual local effects are too weak to detect with univariate analysis. Current approaches are successful in identifying variations that yield highly predictive and compact models. However, they suffer from lessened sensitivity and instabilities in identification of relevant variations. Furthermore, current methods' user-defined parameters are often unintuitive and difficult to determine. In this article, we propose a novel MVPA method for group analysis of high-dimensional data that overcomes the drawbacks of the current techniques. Our approach explicitly aims to identify all relevant variations using a "knock-out" strategy and the Random Forest algorithm. In evaluations with synthetic datasets the proposed method achieved substantially higher sensitivity and accuracy than the state-of-the-art MVPA methods, and outperformed the univariate approach when the effect size is low. In experiments with real datasets the proposed method identified regions beyond the univariate approach, while other MVPA methods failed to replicate the univariate results. More importantly, in a reproducibility study with the well-known ADNI dataset the proposed method yielded higher stability and power than the univariate approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.