Cited by 559Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A Review of Feature Reduction Techniques in Neuroimaging

Open access
Mwangi, Benson, Tian, Tian Siva, Soares, Jair C.·2014·Neuroinformatics

Abstract

Machine learning techniques are increasingly being used in making relevant predictions and inferences on individual subjects neuroimaging scan data. Previous studies have mostly focused on categorical discrimination of patients and matched healthy controls and more recently, on prediction of individual continuous variables such as clinical scores or age. However, these studies are greatly hampered by the large number of predictor variables (voxels) and low observations (subjects) also known as the curse-of-dimensionality or small-n-large-p problem. As a result, feature reduction techniques such as feature subset selection and dimensionality reduction are used to remove redundant predictor variables and experimental noise, a process which mitigates the curse-of-dimensionality and small-n-large-p effects. Feature reduction is an essential step before training a machine learning model to avoid overfitting and therefore improving model prediction accuracy and generalization ability. In this review, we discuss feature reduction techniques used with machine learning in neuroimaging studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12021-013-9204-3

Cites

191 of 191 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When feature vectors from multiple modalities are concatenated, as in early and joint fusion, high-dimensional vectors are generated that can be difficult for machine learning models to learn without overfitting unless a large number of input samples are available (the curse of dimensionality).

    “This is chiefly because when feature vectors from multiple modalities are concatenated, such as in early and joint fusion, high-dimensional vectors are generated which can be difficult for machine learning models to learn without overfitting, unless a large number of input samples are available. This is the so-called “curse of dimensionality” in machine learning52,53.”

    From Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [53]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 193 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Bishop C Pattern recongition and machine learning 2006 Springer New York
  2. Castro E Martinez-Raman M Pearlson G Sui J Calhoun VD Characterization of groups using composite kernels and multi-source fMRI analysis data: application to schizophrenia Neuroimage 2011b 58 526 536 21723948 PMC3242731
  3. Cohen J Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences 1998 Lawrence Erbaum Associates New Jersey 2nd edition
  4. Johansen-Berg H Behrens T Diffusion MRI - from quantitative measurements to in-vivo neuroanatomy 2009 Academic Press London, UK
  5. Marquand A Howard M Brammer M Chu C Coen S Mourao-Miranda J Quantitative prediction of subjective pain intensity from whole-brain fMRI data using Gaussian processes Neuroimage 2010b 49 2178 2189 19879364
  6. Rasmussen C Williams C Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning MIT Press 2006
  7. Theodoridis S Koutroumbas K Pattern Recognition 2009 Elseiver San Diego, California 4th edition
  8. Zhang D Wang Y Zhou L Yuan H Shen D Multimodal classification of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment Neuroimage 2011b 55 856 867 21236349 PMC3057360

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mwangi, B., Tian, T. S., & Soares, J. C.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Mwangi, Benson
Venue
Neuroinformatics
Published
2013-09-08
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
229-244
ISSN
  • 1539-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-0089
OpenAlex
W2036439084
Cited by
559
References
193
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH085667, MH R01 085667)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
feature reduction, dimensionality reduction, feature selection, neuroimaging, voxel selection, curse of dimensionality, overfitting, machine learning, clinical prediction, patient classification
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review