ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Translating phenotypic prediction models from big to small anatomical MRI data using meta-matching.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of cognitive performance by demographics, sleep, and brain morphometry: machine learning findings from ENIGMA-Sleep Working Group.Research square · 2026Article
- Widespread use of invalid statistical tests in biomedical machine learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Mind the Gap: Does Brain Age Improve Alzheimer's Disease Prediction?Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Benchmarking the AI-based diagnostic potential of plasma proteomics for neurodegenerative disease in 17,170 people.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Multilayer meta-matching: Translating phenotypic prediction models from multiple datasets to small data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized phenotypic prediction based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (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), the Human Connectome Project Young Adults (HCP-YA) dataset (N = 1,017), and the 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 and when 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.