PURPOSE: Supervised machine learning (ML) provides a compelling alternative to traditional model fitting for parameter mapping in quantitative MRI. The aim of this work is to demonstrate and quantify the effect of different training data distributions on the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates when supervised ML is used for fitting. METHODS: We fit a two- and three-compartment biophysical model to diffusion measurements from in-vivo human brain, as well as simulated diffusion data, using both traditional model fitting and supervised ML. For supervised ML, we train several artificial neural networks, as well as random forest regressors, on different distributions of ground truth parameters. We compare the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates obtained from the different estimation approaches using synthetic test data. RESULTS: When the distribution of parameter combinations in the training set matches those observed in healthy human data sets, we observe high precision, but inaccurate estimates for atypical parameter combinations. In contrast, when training data is sampled uniformly from the entire plausible parameter space, estimates tend to be more accurate for atypical parameter combinations but may have lower precision for typical parameter combinations. CONCLUSION: This work highlights that estimation of model parameters using supervised ML depends strongly on the training-set distribution. We show that high precision obtained using ML may mask strong bias, and visual assessment of the parameter maps is not sufficient for evaluating the quality of the estimates.
PURPOSE: Supervised machine learning (ML) provides a compelling alternative to traditional model fitting for parameter mapping in quantitative MRI. The aim of this work is to demonstrate and quantify the effect of different training data distributions on the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates when supervised ML is used for fitting. METHODS: We fit a two- and three-compartment biophysical model to diffusion measurements from in-vivo human brain, as well as simulated diffusion data, using both traditional model fitting and supervised ML. For supervised ML, we train several artificial neural networks, as well as random forest regressors, on different distributions of ground truth parameters. We compare the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates obtained from the different estimation approaches using synthetic test data. RESULTS: When the distribution of parameter combinations in the training set matches those observed in healthy human data sets, we observe high precision, but inaccurate estimates for atypical parameter combinations. In contrast, when training data is sampled uniformly from the entire plausible parameter space, estimates tend to be more accurate for atypical parameter combinations but may have lower precision for typical parameter combinations. CONCLUSION: This work highlights that estimation of model parameters using supervised ML depends strongly on the training-set distribution. We show that high precision obtained using ML may mask strong bias, and visual assessment of the parameter maps is not sufficient for evaluating the quality of the estimates.
Authors: Santiago Coelho; Steven H Baete; Gregory Lemberskiy; Benjamin Ades-Aron; Genevieve Barrol; Jelle Veraart; Dmitry S Novikov; Els Fieremans Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-05-08 Impact factor: 7.400