2013 International Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Neuroimaging 2013
DOI: 10.1109/prni.2013.40
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Localizing and Comparing Weight Maps Generated from Linear Kernel Machine Learning Models

Abstract: Abstract-Recently, machine learning models have been applied to neuroimaging data, allowing to make predictions about a variable of interest based on the pattern of activation or anatomy over a set of voxels. These pattern recognition based methods present undeniable assets over classical (univariate) techniques, by providing predictions for unseen data, as well as the weights of each voxel in the model. However, the obtained weight map cannot be thresholded to perform regionally specific inference, leading to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
44
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To quantify the relative importance of each module, we calculated the absolute value of each weight and took the average within each module. Then, we ranked all of the modules (Schrouff et al, 2013). For the interoception prediction, the most important areas were the COTC, VAN-SSM, and COTC-SSM (Figure 5a,c); for the anxiety prediction, the most important areas were the SN-SSM, DMN-VAN, and COTC-SN (Figure 5b,c).…”
Section: Quantification Of Relative Importancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To quantify the relative importance of each module, we calculated the absolute value of each weight and took the average within each module. Then, we ranked all of the modules (Schrouff et al, 2013). For the interoception prediction, the most important areas were the COTC, VAN-SSM, and COTC-SSM (Figure 5a,c); for the anxiety prediction, the most important areas were the SN-SSM, DMN-VAN, and COTC-SN (Figure 5b,c).…”
Section: Quantification Of Relative Importancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…the atlas-based local averaging method (ABLA) presented in Schrouff et al (2013a). 305 Second, an L1-MKL version of the algorithm introduced in Rakotomamonjy et al (2008) 306 and implemented in the PRoNTo toolbox (Schrouff et al, 2013b).…”
Section: Schaefer 293mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sensitivity, specificity, and balanced accuracy of the resulting classification solution were calculated and permutation tests based on 5,000 iterations were used to assess the level of statistical significance set at p < .05. Weight-maps and rankorders of the regional weight averages were calculated for the GM data as described in Schrouff, Cremers, et al (2013).…”
Section: Pattern Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…side; R, right side. Area, brain region according to the automated anatomical labeling atlas(Tzourio-Mazoyer et al, 2002); Weight abs., mean of absolute weight values of included all voxels within the region(Schrouff, Cremers, et al, 2013); Weight perc., percentage of normalized weight values of this region relative to the sum of all weight values of all regions for the respective classification problem. Voxels, number of voxels included.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%