ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Translating phenotypic prediction models from big to small anatomical MRI data using meta-matching.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized phenotypic prediction based on structural MRI is an important goal in neuroscience. Prediction performance increases with larger samples, but small-scale datasets with fewer than 200 participants are often unavoidable. We have previously proposed a "meta-matching" framework to translate models trained from large datasets to improve the prediction of new unseen phenotypes in small collection efforts. Meta-matching exploits correlations between phenotypes, yielding large improvement over classical machine learning when applied to prediction models using resting-state functional connectivity as input features. Here, we adapt the two best performing meta-matching variants ("meta-matching finetune" and "meta-matching stacking") from our previous study to work with T1-weighted MRI data by changing the base neural network architecture to a 3D convolution neural network. We compare the two meta-matching variants with elastic net and classical transfer learning using the UK Biobank (N = 36,461), Human Connectome Project Young Adults (HCP-YA) dataset (N = 1,017) and HCP-Aging dataset (N = 656). We find that meta-matching outperforms elastic net and classical transfer learning by a large margin, both when translating models within the same dataset, as well as translating models across datasets with different MRI scanners, acquisition protocols and demographics. For example, when translating a UK Biobank model to 100 HCP-YA participants, meta-matching finetune yielded a 136% improvement in variance explained over transfer learning, with an average absolute gain of 2.6% (minimum = -0.9%, maximum = 17.6%) across 35 phenotypes. Overall, our results highlight the versatility of the meta-matching framework.
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.