Clinical prediction from structural brain MRI scans: A large-scale empirical study
Open accessAbstract
Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) methods have become an important tool in neuroimaging, revealing complex associations and yielding powerful prediction models. Despite methodological developments and novel application domains, there has been little effort to compile benchmark results that researchers can reference and compare against. This study takes a significant step in this direction. We employed three classes of state-of-the-art MVPA algorithms and common types of structural measurements from brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans to predict an array of clinically relevant variables (diagnosis of Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, autism, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder; age, cerebrospinal fluid derived amyloid-β levels and mini-mental state exam score). We analyzed data from over 2,800 subjects, compiled from six publicly available datasets. The employed data and computational tools are freely distributed ( https://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/lab/mripredict), making this the largest, most comprehensive, reproducible benchmark image-based prediction experiment to date in structural neuroimaging. Finally, we make several observations regarding the factors that influence prediction performance and point to future research directions. Unsurprisingly, our results suggest that the biological footprint (effect size) has a dramatic influence on prediction performance. Though the choice of image measurement and MVPA algorithm can impact the result, there was no universally optimal selection. Intriguingly, the choice of algorithm seemed to be less critical than the choice of measurement type. Finally, our results showed that cross-validation estimates of performance, while generally optimistic, correlate well with generalization accuracy on a new dataset.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Large-sample studies collectively demonstrate performance accuracy from 59% to 70% when testing untrained data.
“Collectively, these large-sample studies demonstrate performance accuracy from 59% to 70% when testing untrained data 65–68,94.”
From Subtyping cognitive profiles in Autism Spectrum Disorder using a Functional Random Forest algorithm (2018) · cites this paper as [68]
Machine learning approaches using imaging data have shown that validation accuracy decreases as sample size increases, suggesting that small sample sizes may overfit the data.
“Machine learning approaches using imaging data have shown that validation accuracy decreases as the sample size increases, suggesting that these small sample sizes may be overfitting the data 65,68.”
From Subtyping cognitive profiles in Autism Spectrum Disorder using a Functional Random Forest algorithm (2018) · cites this paper as [68]
Biological links such as single nucleotide polymorphisms, brain structure, or functional connectivity to specific disorders are limited.
“Biological links such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (4,5), brain structure (6,7), or functional connectivity (8,9) to specific disorders are limited.”
From Methods and challenges for assessing heterogeneity (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 161
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Guyon I Elisseeff A 2003 An introduction to variable and feature selection The Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 1157 1182
- Tipping ME 2001 Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine The Journal of Machine Learning Research 1 211 244
- Authors
- Initiative, F. T. A. D. N., Sabuncu, M. R., & Konukoglu, E.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sabuncu, Mert R.
- ORCID
- Sabuncu, Mert R.
- Venue
- Neuroinformatics
- Published
- 2014-07-22
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-46
- ISSN
- 1539-2791 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-0089
- PMC
- PMC4303550
- OpenAlex
- W2091532770
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 6.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Neuroinformatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1s10rr019307-01, 1s10rr023043-01)
- National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH093765)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R21NS072652, R01NS070963, R01NS052585, R01NS083534)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB006758, P41EB015896, K25EB013649)
- National Center for Research Resources (U24RR021382, 1S10RR0 23043, 1S10-RR019307, S10RR023401)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- multivariate pattern analysis, structural MRI, clinical prediction, benchmarking, Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, amyloid-beta, Mini-Mental State Examination, age prediction, image-based measurement, generalization accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
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