Classical Statistics and Statistical Learning in Imaging Neuroscience
원문 초록
Neuroimaging research has predominantly drawn conclusions based on classical statistics, including null-hypothesis testing, t-tests, and ANOVA. Throughout recent years, statistical learning methods enjoy increasing popularity, including cross-validation, pattern classification, and sparsity-inducing regression. These two methodological families used for neuroimaging data analysis can be viewed as two extremes of a continuum. Yet, they originated from different historical contexts, build on different theories, rest on different assumptions, evaluate different outcome metrics, and permit different conclusions. This paper portrays commonalities and differences between classical statistics and statistical learning with their relation to neuroimaging research. The conceptual implications are illustrated in three common analysis scenarios. It is thus tried to resolve possible confusion between classical hypothesis testing and data-guided model estimation by discussing their ramifications for the neuroimaging access to neurobiology.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
Active Learning for Manifold Gaussian Process Regression
Vector Contrastive Learning For Pixel-Wise Pretraining In Medical Vision
GRASP: Grouped Regression with Adaptive Shrinkage Priors
CAWR: Corruption-Averse Advantage-Weighted Regression for Robust Policy Optimization
Scaling-Up the Pretraining of the Earth Observation Foundation Model PhilEO to the MajorTOM Dataset
Fidelity Isn't Accuracy: When Linearly Decodable Functions Fail to Match the Ground Truth
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.