SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1311.6732

A statistical test to identify differences in clustering structures

Abstract

Statistical inference on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data is an important task in brain imaging. One major hypothesis is that the presence or not of a psychiatric disorder can be explained by the differential clustering of neurons in the brain. In view of this fact, it is clearly of interest to address the question of whether the properties of the clusters have changed between groups of patients and controls. The normal method of approaching group differences in brain imaging is to carry out a voxel-wise univariate analysis for a difference between the mean group responses using an appropriate test (e.g. a t-test) and to assemble the resulting "significantly different voxels" into clusters, testing again at cluster level. In this approach of course, the primary voxel-level test is blind to any cluster structure. Direct assessments of differences between groups (or reproducibility within groups) at the cluster level have been rare in brain imaging. For this reason, we introduce a novel statistical test called ANOCVA - ANalysis Of Cluster structure Variability, which statistically tests whether two or more populations are equally clustered using specific features. The proposed method allows us to compare the clustering structure of multiple groups simultaneously, and also to identify features that contribute to the differential clustering. We illustrate the performance of ANOCVA through simulations and an application to an fMRI data set composed of children with ADHD and controls. Results show that there are several differences in the brain's clustering structure between them, corroborating the hypothesis in the literature. Furthermore, we identified some brain regions previously not described, generating new hypothesis to be tested empirically.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

André Fujita, Daniel Y. Takahashi, Alexandre G. Patriota, João R. Sato. 2013-11-26. A statistical test to identify differences in clustering structures. https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.6732

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME