Advertisement

Behaviormetrika

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 147–162 | Cite as

Functional logistic discrimination with sparse PCA and its application to the structural MRI

  • Yuko ArakiEmail author
  • Atsushi Kawaguchi
Invited Paper

Abstract

We propose a functional classification method with high-dimensional image predictors using a combination of logistic discrimination and basis expansions with sparse principal component analysis (PCA). Our model is an extension of the existing functional generalized linear models with image predictors using functional principal component regression to L1-regularized principal components. This extension enables us to create a more flexible prognostic region that does not depend on the shape of basis functions. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to examine the method’s efficiency when compared with several possible classification techniques. Our method was shown to be the best in terms of both sensitivity and specificity for detecting the shape of interests and classifying groups. In addition, our model was applied to data on Alzheimer’s disease. Our model detected the prognostic brain region and was used to classify early-stage Alzheimer patients efficiently, based on three-dimensional structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI).

Keywords

Functional data analysis Regularized logistic classification Sparse PCA Radial basis expansions 

Mathematics Subject Classification

62H30 62H25 62P10 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Editors and the Reviewers for their constructive suggestions and careful reading of our manuscript, which considerably improved the paper. This research was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology of Japan (26730023 to YA) and by Takayanagi Memorial Foundation for Science and Technology, Shizuoka University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akama H, Murphy B (2017) Emerging methods for conceptual modelling in neuroimaging. Behaviormetrika 44:117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-016-0009-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araki Y, Konishi S, Kawano S, Matsui H (2009) Functional logistic discrimination via regularized basis expansions. Commun Stat Theory Methods 38:2944–2957MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Araki Y, Kawaguchi A, Yamashita F (2013) Regularized logistic discrimination with basis expansions for the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease based on three-dimensional MRI data. Adv Data Anal Classif 7:109–119MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadima J, Jolliffe IT (1995) Loadings and correlations in the interpretation of principal components. J Appl Stat 22(2):203–214MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casanova R, Hsu FC, Espeland MA (2012) Classification of structural MRI images in Alzheimer’s disease from the perspective of ill-posed problems. PLoS One 7(10):e44877.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapelle O, Vapnik V, Bousquet O, Mukherjee S (2002) Choosing multiple parameters for support vector machines. Mach Learn 46:131–159CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Crainiceanu CM, Staicu AM, Di CZ (2009) Generalized multilevel functional regression.J AM Stat Assoc 104:1550–1561MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Hinrichs C, Singh V, Xu G, Johnson SC (2009) MKL for robust multi-modality AD classification. MICCAI 1:786–794Google Scholar
  9. Hirata Y, Matsuda H, Nemoto K, Ohnishi T, Hirao K, Yamashita F, Asada T, Iwabuchi S, Samejima H (2005) Voxel-based morphometry to discriminate early Alzheimer’s disease from controls. Neurosci Lett 3:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jolliffe IT, Trendafilov NT, M aUddin (2003) A modified principal component technique based on the LASSO. J Comput Graph Stat 12(3):531–547MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawano S, Fujisawa H, Takada T, Shiroishi T (2018) Sparse principal component regression for generalized linear models. Comput Stat Data Anal 124:180–196MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Kloppel S, Stonnington CM, Chu C, Draganski B, Scahill RI, Rohrer JD, Fox NC, Jack CR, Ashburner J, Frackowiak RS (2008) Automatic classification of MR scans in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 131:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu W, Awate SP, Anderson JS, Fletcher PT (2014) A functional network estimation method of resting-state fMRI using a hierarchical Markov random field. Neuroimage 100:520–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morris JC (1993) The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 43(11):2412–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parmar C, Joseph DB, Hosny Ahmed, Quackenbush John, Aerts Hugo JWL (2018) Data analysis strategies in medical imaging. Clin Cancer Res.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0385 Google Scholar
  16. Querbes O, Aubry F, Pariente J, Lotterie JA, Demonet JF, Duret V, Puel M, Berry I, Fort JC, Celsis P (2009) Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease using cortical thickness: impact of cognitive reserve. Brain 132:2036–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reiss PT, Ogden RT (2007) Functional principal component regression and functional partial least squares. J Am Stat Assoc 102(479):984–996MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Reiss PT, Ogden RT (2010) Functional generalized linear models with images as predictors. Biometrics 66(1):61–69MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Saranli A, Baykal B (1998) Complexity reduction in radial basis function (RBF) networks by using radial B-spline functions. Neurocomputing 18:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2):461–464MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Shen H, Huang J (2008) Sparse principal component analysis via regularized low rank matrix approximation. J Multivar Anal 99(6):1015–1034MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Trevethan (2017) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Front Public health 5:307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vemuri P, Gunter JL, Senjem ML, Whitwell JL, Kantarci K, Knopman DS, Boeve BF, Petersen RC, Jack CR Jr (2008) Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis in individual subjects using structural MR images: validation studies. Neuroimage 39:1186–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Witten DM, Tibshirani R, Hastie T (2009) A penalized matrix decomposition, with applications to sparse principal components and canonical correlation analysis. Biostatisics 10(3):515–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zou H, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2006) Sparse principal component analysis. J Comput Graph Stat 15(2):265–286MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsShizuoka UniversityHamamatsuJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations