ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
A Framework for Comparison and Interpretation of Machine Learning Classifiers to Predict Autism on the ABIDE Dataset.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence support for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders during childhood: an umbrella review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Autism spectrum disorder across the lifespan: Dynamic symptom trajectories and multidimensional support framework.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Lean-NET-Based Local Brain Connectome Analysis for Autism Spectrum Disorder Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating multi-atlas neuroimaging data for robust biomarker identification in neuropsychiatric disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Trends in Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Autism Research in Children and Adolescents: A Scientometric Study.Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting ~1% of the population. Recently, machine learning models have been trained to classify participants with autism using their neuroimaging features, though the performance of these models varies in the literature. Differences in experimental setup hamper the direct comparison of different machine-learning approaches. In this paper, five of the most widely used and best-performing machine learning models in the field were trained to classify participants with autism and typically developing (TD) participants, using functional connectivity matrices, structural volumetric measures, and phenotypic information from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset. Their performance was compared under the same evaluation standard. The models implemented included: graph convolutional networks (GCN), edge-variational graph convolutional networks (EV-GCN), fully connected networks (FCN), autoencoder followed by a fully connected network (AE-FCN) and support vector machine (SVM). Our results show that all models performed similarly, achieving a classification accuracy around 70%. Our results suggest that different inclusion criteria, data modalities, and evaluation pipelines rather than different machine learning models may explain variations in accuracy in the published literature. The highest accuracy in our framework was obtained when using ensemble models (p < 0.001), leading to an accuracy of 72.2% and AUC = 0.77 using GCN classifiers. However, an SVM classifier performed with an accuracy of 70.1% and AUC = 0.77, just marginally below GCN, and significant differences were not found when comparing different algorithms under the same testing conditions (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we also investigated the stability of features identified by the different machine learning models using the SmoothGrad interpretation method. The FCN model demonstrated the highest stability in selecting relevant features contributing to model decision making. The code is available at https://github.com/YilanDong19/Machine-learning-with-ABIDE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.