ArticleInformation processing in medical imaging : proceedings of the ... conference2019
On Training Deep 3D CNN Models with Dependent Samples in Neuroimaging.
Article in Information processing in medical imaging : proceedings of the ... conference, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal self-supervised learning.Medical image analysis · 2021Article
- A Variational Approximation for Analyzing the Dynamics of Panel Data.Uncertainty in artificial intelligence : proceedings of the ... conference. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is much interest in developing algorithms based on 3D convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for performing regression and classification with brain imaging data and more generally, with biomedical imaging data. A standard assumption in learning is that the training samples are independently drawn from the underlying distribution. In computer vision, where we have millions of training examples, this assumption is violated but the empirical performance may remain satisfactory. But in many biomedical studies with just a few hundred training examples, one often has multiple samples per participant and/or data may be curated by pooling datasets from a few different institutions. Here, the violation of the independent samples assumption turns out to be more significant, especially in small-to-medium sized datasets. Motivated by this need, we show how 3D CNNs can be modified to deal with dependent samples. We show that even with standard 3D CNNs, there is value in augmenting the network to exploit information regarding dependent samples. We present empirical results for predicting cognitive trajectories (slope and intercept) from morphometric change images derived from multiple time points. With terms which encode dependency between samples in the model, we get consistent improvements over a strong baseline which ignores such knowledge.
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.