Dataset Information

Machine-Learning Studies on Spin Models.

ABSTRACT: With the recent developments in machine learning, Carrasquilla and Melko have proposed a paradigm that is complementary to the conventional approach for the study of spin models. As an alternative to investigating the thermal average of macroscopic physical quantities, they have used the spin configurations for the classification of the disordered and ordered phases of a phase transition through machine learning. We extend and generalize this method. We focus on the configuration of the long-range correlation function instead of the spin configuration itself, which enables us to provide the same treatment to multi-component systems and the systems with a vector order parameter. We analyze the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition with the same technique to classify three phases: the disordered, the BKT, and the ordered phases. We also present the classification of a model using the training data of a different model.

SUBMITTER: Shiina K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7005704 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Machine-Learning Studies on Spin Models.

Shiina Kenta K Mori Hiroyuki H Okabe Yutaka Y Lee Hwee Kuan HK

Scientific reports 20200207 1

With the recent developments in machine learning, Carrasquilla and Melko have proposed a paradigm that is complementary to the conventional approach for the study of spin models. As an alternative to investigating the thermal average of macroscopic physical quantities, they have used the spin configurations for the classification of the disordered and ordered phases of a phase transition through machine learning. We extend and generalize this method. We focus on the configuration of the long-ran ...[more]

PMID: 32034178

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:MR imaging-based modeling of tumor cell density can substantially improve targeted treatment of glioblastoma. Unfortunately, interpatient variability limits the predictive ability of many modeling approaches. We present a transfer learning method that generates individualized patient models, grounded in the wealth of population data, while also detecting and adjusting for interpatient variabilities based on each patient's own histologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We recruited patients with primary glioblastoma undergoing image-guided biopsies and preoperative imaging, including contrast-enhanced MR imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging, and diffusion tensor imaging. We calculated relative cerebral blood volume from DSC-MR imaging and mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy from DTI. Following image coregistration, we assessed tumor cell density for each biopsy and identified corresponding localized MR imaging measurements. We then explored a range of univariate and multivariate predictive models of tumor cell density based on MR imaging measurements in a generalized one-model-fits-all approach. We then implemented both univariate and multivariate individualized transfer learning predictive models, which harness the available population-level data but allow individual variability in their predictions. Finally, we compared Pearson correlation coefficients and mean absolute error between the individualized transfer learning and generalized one-model-fits-all models. RESULTS:Tumor cell density significantly correlated with relative CBV (r = 0.33, P < .001), and T1-weighted postcontrast (r = 0.36, P < .001) on univariate analysis after correcting for multiple comparisons. With single-variable modeling (using relative CBV), transfer learning increased predictive performance (r = 0.53, mean absolute error = 15.19%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.27, mean absolute error = 17.79%). With multivariate modeling, transfer learning further improved performance (r = 0.88, mean absolute error = 5.66%) compared with one-model-fits-all (r = 0.39, mean absolute error = 16.55%). CONCLUSIONS:Transfer learning significantly improves predictive modeling performance for quantifying tumor cell density in glioblastoma.

Project description:AimsWe conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on.MethodMedline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers.ResultsThe search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to.ConclusionAll studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42018099167.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of studies on prediction models developed using machine learning techniques across all medical specialties.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019.Eligibility criteriaArticles reporting on the development, with or without external validation, of a multivariable prediction model (diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised machine learning for individualised predictions. No restrictions applied for study design, data source, or predicted patient related health outcomes.Review methodsMethodological quality of the studies was determined and risk of bias evaluated using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). This tool contains 21 signalling questions tailored to identify potential biases in four domains. Risk of bias was measured for each domain (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis) and each study (overall).Results152 studies were included: 58 (38%) included a diagnostic prediction model and 94 (62%) a prognostic prediction model. PROBAST was applied to 152 developed models and 19 external validations. Of these 171 analyses, 148 (87%, 95% confidence interval 81% to 91%) were rated at high risk of bias. The analysis domain was most frequently rated at high risk of bias. Of the 152 models, 85 (56%, 48% to 64%) were developed with an inadequate number of events per candidate predictor, 62 handled missing data inadequately (41%, 33% to 49%), and 59 assessed overfitting improperly (39%, 31% to 47%). Most models used appropriate data sources to develop (73%, 66% to 79%) and externally validate the machine learning based prediction models (74%, 51% to 88%). Information about blinding of outcome and blinding of predictors was, however, absent in 60 (40%, 32% to 47%) and 79 (52%, 44% to 60%) of the developed models, respectively.ConclusionMost studies on machine learning based prediction models show poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias. Factors contributing to risk of bias include small study size, poor handling of missing data, and failure to deal with overfitting. Efforts to improve the design, conduct, reporting, and validation of such studies are necessary to boost the application of machine learning based prediction models in clinical practice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019161764.

Dataset Information

Machine-Learning Studies on Spin Models.

Publications

Machine-Learning Studies on Spin Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets