Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34525108›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The pitfalls of using Gaussian Process Regression for normative modeling.

Bohan Xu, Rayus Kuplicki, Sandip Sen, Martin P Paulus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bohan XuLaureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5876-1740
Rayus KuplickiLaureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2954-6421
Sandip SenDepartment of Computer Science, Tandy School of Computer Science, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.
Martin P PaulusLaureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0825-3606

Funding

The Center for Neuroscience-based Mental Health Assessment and Prediction (NEUROMAP)P20GM121312 · NIGMS · LAUREATE INSTITUTE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH · PI Maëlle Camille Marie Gueguen · 2017 to 2026
$23.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM121312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Normative modeling, a group of methods used to quantify an individual's deviation from some expected trajectory relative to observed variability around that trajectory, has been used to characterize subject heterogeneity. Gaussian Processes Regression includes an estimate of variable uncertainty across the input domain, which at face value makes it an attractive method to normalize the cohort heterogeneity where the deviation between predicted value and true observation is divided by the derived uncertainty directly from Gaussian Processes Regression. However, we show that the uncertainty directly from Gaussian Processes Regression is irrelevant to the cohort heterogeneity in general.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesRegression AnalysisHumansModels, TheoreticalNormal DistributionUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID34525108
PMCPMC8443061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.