ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
The effects of data leakage on connectome-based machine learning models.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predictive modeling has now become a central technique in neuroimaging to identify complex brain-behavior relationships and test their generalizability to unseen data. However, data leakage, which unintentionally breaches the separation between data used to train and test the model, undermines the validity of predictive models. Previous literature suggests that leakage is generally pervasive in machine learning, but few studies have empirically evaluated the effects of leakage in neuroimaging data. Although leakage is always an incorrect practice, understanding the effects of leakage on neuroimaging predictive models provides insight into the extent to which leakage may affect the literature. Here, we investigated the effects of leakage on machine learning models in two common neuroimaging modalities, functional and structural connectomes. Using over 400 different pipelines spanning four large datasets and three phenotypes, we evaluated five forms of leakage fitting into three broad categories: feature selection, covariate correction, and lack of independence between subjects. As expected, leakage via feature selection and repeated subjects drastically inflated prediction performance. Notably, other forms of leakage had only minor effects (e.g., leaky site correction) or even decreased prediction performance (e.g., leaky covariate regression). In some cases, leakage affected not only prediction performance, but also model coefficients, and thus neurobiological interpretations. Finally, we found that predictive models using small datasets were more sensitive to leakage. Overall, our results illustrate the variable effects of leakage on prediction pipelines and underscore the importance of avoiding data leakage to improve the validity and reproducibility of predictive modeling.
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.