mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Deep Learning in current Neuroimaging: a multivariate approach with power and type I error control but arguable generalization ability

arXiv 2103.16685 ↗First posted 30 Mar 2021stat.ML cs.LG eess.IVcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Discriminative analysis in neuroimaging by means of deep/machine learning techniques is usually tested with validation techniques, whereas the associated statistical significance remains largely under-developed due to their computational complexity. In this work, a non-parametric framework is proposed that estimates the statistical significance of classifications using deep learning architectures. In particular, a combination of autoencoders (AE) and support vector machines (SVM) is applied to: (i) a one-condition, within-group designs often of normal controls (NC) and; (ii) a two-condition, between-group designs which contrast, for example, Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with NC (the extension to multi-class analyses is also included). A random-effects inference based on a label permutation test is proposed in both studies using cross-validation (CV) and resubstitution with upper bound correction (RUB) as validation methods. This allows both false positives and classifier overfitting to be detected as well as estimating the statistical power of the test. Several experiments were carried out using the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) dataset, and a MCI prediction dataset. We found in the permutation test that CV and RUB methods offer a false positive rate close to the significance level and an acceptable statistical power (although lower using cross-validation). A large separation between training and test accuracies using CV was observed, especially in one-condition designs. This implies a low generalization ability as the model fitted in training is not informative with respect to the test set. We propose as solution by applying RUB, whereby similar results are obtained to those of the CV test set, but considering the whole set and with a lower computational cost per iteration.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2021.

Builds on

13 of 75 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
  2. 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 7,005
  3. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
  4. 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 600
  5. 2015Norm-Based Capacity Control in Neural Networkscited by 299
  6. 2017Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 146
  7. 2019Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Alzheimer's Disease: Overview and Reproducible Evaluationcited by 107
  8. 2017Cross-validation failure: small sample sizes lead to large error barscited by 43
  9. 2019Deep Learning in Alzheimer's disease: Diagnostic Classification and Prognostic Prediction using Neuroimaging Datacited by 30
  10. 2015Can parametric statistical methods be trusted for fMRI based group studies?cited by 22
  11. 2015Predicting Alzheimer's disease: a neuroimaging study with 3D convolutional neural networkscited by 17
  12. 2016Better-Than-Chance Classification for Signal Detectioncited by 8
1 more
  1. 2019Statistical Agnostic Mapping: a Framework in Neuroimaging based on Concentration Inequalitiescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 0; 2023: 1.

4 papers.