Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38380126›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2024

Enabling uncertainty estimation in neural networks through weight perturbation for improved Alzheimer's disease classification.

Matteo Ferrante, Tommaso Boccato, Nicola Toschi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Matteo FerranteDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso BoccatoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Nicola ToschiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The willingness to trust predictions formulated by automatic algorithms is key in a wide range of domains. However, a vast number of deep architectures are only able to formulate predictions without associated uncertainty. Purpose: In this study, we propose a method to convert a standard neural network into a Bayesian neural network and estimate the variability of predictions by sampling different networks similar to the original one at each forward pass. Methods: We combine our method with a tunable rejection-based approach that employs only the fraction of the data, i.e., the share that the model can classify with an uncertainty below a user-set threshold. We test our model in a large cohort of brain images from patients with Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls, discriminating the former and latter classes based on morphometric images exclusively. Results: We demonstrate how combining estimated uncertainty with a rejection-based approach increases classification accuracy from 0.86 to 0.95 while retaining 75% of the test set. In addition, the model can select the cases to be recommended for, e.g., expert human evaluation due to excessive uncertainty. Importantly, our framework circumvents additional workload during the training phase by using our network "turned into Bayesian" to implicitly investigate the loss landscape in the neighborhood of each test sample in order to determine the reliability of the predictions. Conclusion: We believe that being able to estimate the uncertainty of a prediction, along with tools that can modulate the behavior of the network to a degree of confidence that the user is informed about (and comfortable with), can represent a crucial step in the direction of user compliance and easier integration of deep learning tools into everyday tasks currently performed by human operators.

Indexed as

Bayesianclassificationconvolutional neural network (CNN)deep learninguncertainty

Identifiers

PMID38380126
PMCPMC10876844

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.