Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40095417›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2025

A Framework for Comparison and Interpretation of Machine Learning Classifiers to Predict Autism on the ABIDE Dataset.

Yilan Dong, Dafnis Batalle, Maria Deprez

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yilan DongSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9731-8362
Dafnis BatalleSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2097-979X
Maria DeprezSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

King's-China Scholarship Council (K-CSC) 202008060109Wellcome Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre WT 203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderConnectomeMachine LearningAdolescentChildDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector MachineABIDEensemble methodsfunctional MRIinterpretationmachine learningstabilitystructural MRI

Identifiers

PMID40095417
PMCPMC11912182

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.