2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2015.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computer aided diagnosis of schizophrenia on resting state fMRI data by ensembles of ELM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
38
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(58 reference statements)
1
38
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In recent years, the number of neurobiological literatures using fMRI to study SZ disease has increased significantly. fMRI is usually applied to discover anomalous patterns present in activation maps [i.e., Regional Homogeneity (REHO), Amplitude of Low Frequency Fluctuations (ALFF), fractional Amplitude of Low Frequency Fluctuations (FALFF)] (Guo et al, 2014;Chyzhyk et al, 2015;Huang et al, 2018) of SZ. These activation maps are widely used as potential clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of SZ.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, the number of neurobiological literatures using fMRI to study SZ disease has increased significantly. fMRI is usually applied to discover anomalous patterns present in activation maps [i.e., Regional Homogeneity (REHO), Amplitude of Low Frequency Fluctuations (ALFF), fractional Amplitude of Low Frequency Fluctuations (FALFF)] (Guo et al, 2014;Chyzhyk et al, 2015;Huang et al, 2018) of SZ. These activation maps are widely used as potential clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of SZ.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is particularly in these kinds of applications where we expect the conformal analysis to be most useful. The classification accuracy achieved with SCBconf appeared to outperform recent published analyses of the same data (Chyzhyk et al 2015; Kim et al 2016). However, note that the direct comparison of the classification performance with these works is not fair since it is subject to the differences in variable extraction (different variables were used), data processing (different subjects were excluded) and evaluation (different cross-validation folds were used).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Various machine‐learning techniques have been applied to mass rs‐fcMRI data to objectively identify disorder‐specific abnormalities in mental disorders, with which automatic case–control classifications were employed. Table summarizes the previous attempts for schizophrenia, MDD, ADHD, and ASD . The take‐home messages of this summary are as follows: (i) irrespective of disorder type, classification accuracy is, overall, 80–90%, comparable to those based on structural MRI data; (ii) in many studies, especially for schizophrenia and MDD, the sample per group (case or control) is typically comprised of fewer than 100 participants; (iii) for all schizophrenia and MDD studies, the imaging data were acquired at a single site, whereas for many ADHD and ASD studies, the imaging data came from multiple sites, thanks to the recent multicenter imaging campaigns for these disorders; (iv) inter‐regional functional connectivity and the associated graph metrics are popular features used for classification; (v) head motions during scanning have been known to introduce artifacts in the functional connectivity estimate, the effects of which are controlled by regression, masking (scrubbing), or independent component analysis; (vi) BOLD signal fluctuations of non‐neuronal origins, such as respiration and cardiac activity, are removed by regressing out the signals in white matter and cerebrospinal fluid, although further inclusion of global signal fluctuation into the regressor is not unanimous among the studies due to the recent controversy; (vii) support vector machine (SVM) and its variants are popular prediction methods, although some studies use classifiers with embedded regularization frameworks, such as least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO); (viii) leave‐one‐out and k‐fold cross‐validation procedures are popular methods for model evaluation; and (ix) for all but one study, the generalization capability of a classification scheme is untested in an independent cohort.…”
Section: Data‐driven Approach For Making Predictions In Clinical Settmentioning
confidence: 99%