Understanding structural changes in the brain that are caused by a particular disease is a major goal of neuroimaging research. Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) comprises a collection of tools that can be used to understand complex disease efxcfects across the brain. We discuss several important issues that must be considered when analyzing data from neuroimaging studies using MVPA. In particular, we focus on the consequences of confounding by non-imaging variables such as age and sex on the results of MVPA. After reviewing current practice to address confounding in neuroimaging studies, we propose an alternative approach based on inverse probability weighting. Although the proposed method is motivated by neuroimaging applications, it is broadly applicable to many problems in machine learning and predictive modeling. We demonstrate the advantages of our approach on simulated and real data examples.

Keywords:
Multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA);
structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI);
confounding;
inverse probability weighting;
support vector machine (SVM);
machine learning;
predictive modeling

Quantifying population-level differences in the brain that are attributable to neurological or psychiatric disorders is a major focus of neuroimaging research. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used to investigate changes in brain structure that may aid the diagnosis and monitoring of disease. A structural MRI of the brain consists of many voxels, where a voxel is the three dimensional analogue of a pixel. Each voxel has a corresponding intensity, and jointly the voxels encode information about the size and structure of the brain. Functional MRI (fMRI) also plays an important role in the understanding of disease mechanisms by revealing relationships between disease and brain function. In this work we focus on structural MRI data, but many of the concepts apply to fMRI studies.

One way to assess group-level differences in the brain is to take a “mass-univariate” approach, where statistical tests are applied separately at each voxel. This is the basic idea behind statistical parametric mapping (SPM) [1–3] and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) [4, 5]. Voxel-based methods are limited in the sense that they do not make use of information contained jointly among multiple voxels. Figure 1 illustrates this concept using toy data with two variables,

The goal of MVPA is often two-fold: (i) to understand underlying patterns in the brain that characterize a disease, and (ii) to develop sensitive and specific image-based biomarkers for disease diagnosis, the prediction of disease progression, or prediction of treatment response. Although the MVPA literature often uses terminology that suggests a causal interpretation of disease patterns in the brain, little has been done to formalize a causal framework for neuroimaging, with the notable exception of recent work by Weichwald et al. [62]. In this paper, we elucidate subtle differences between the two goals of MVPA and provide guidance for future implementation of MVPA in neuroimaging studies. We focus attention on the consequences of confounding on goal (i) and give a few remarks regarding goal (ii).

Confounding of the disease-image relationship by non-imaging variables such as age and gender can have undesirable effects on the output of MVPA. In particular, confounding may lead to identification of false disease patterns, undermining the usefulness and reproducibility of MVPA results. We discuss the implications of “regressing out” confounding effects using voxel-wise parametric models, a widely used approach for addressing confounding, and propose an alternative based on inverse probability weighting.

The structure of this paper is the following. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the use of MVPA in neuroimaging with focus on the use of the support vector machine (SVM) as a tool for MVPA. In Section 3, we address the issue of confounding by reviewing current practice in neuroimaging and proposing an alternative approach. In Section 4, we illustrate our method using simulated data, and Section 5 presents an application to data from an Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging study. We conclude with a discussion in Section 6.

Let

A popular MVPA tool used by the neuroimaging community is the support vector machine (SVM) [29, 30]. This choice is partly motivated by the fact that SVMs are known to work well for high dimension, low sample size data [31]. Often, the number of voxels in a single MRI can exceed one million depending on the resolution of the scanner and the protocol used to obtain the image. The SVM is trained to predict the group label from the vectorized set of voxels that comprise an image. Alternatives include penalized logistic regression [32] as well as functional principal components and functional partial least squares [33, 34].Henceforth, we focus on MVPA using the SVM.

The hard-margin linear SVM solves the contrained optimization problem

(1)
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
Y
i
(
v
T
X
i
+
b
)
≥
1
∀
i
=
1
,
…
,
n
,

Where

(2)
ξ
i
≥
0
∀
i
=
1
,
…
,
n
,

where

In high-dimensional problems where the number of features is greater than the number of observations, the data are almost always separable by a linear hyperplane [36]. Thus, MVPA is often applied using the hard-margin linear SVM in (1). For example, this is the approach implemented by: Bendfeldt et al. [37] to classify subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients; Cuingnet et al. [7] and Davatzikos et al. [8] in Alzheimer’s disease applications; and Liu et al. [38], Gong et al. [39], and Costafreda et al. [40] for various classification tasks involving patients with depression. This is only a small subset of the relavant literature, which illustrates the widespread popularity of the approach.

When the goal of MVPA is to understand patterns of change in the brain that are attributable to a disease, the ideal dataset would contain two images for each subject: one where the subject has the disease and another at the same point in time where the subject is healthy. Of course, this is the fundamental problem of causal inference, as it is impossible to observe both of these potential outcomes [41, 42]. In addition, confounding of the disease--image relationship presents challenges. Figure 2 depicts confounding of the

Let

The target parameter

We do not directly observe samples from

for all

Note that the expectation is over the marginal distribution of

where

To illustrate the effects of confounding on MVPA, consider a toy example with a single confounder

(3)
ϵ
1
ϵ
2
∼
N
o
r
m
a
l
0
0
,
3
1
1
3
.

Note that model (3) has the property that

There is some variation in the definition of confounding in the imaging literature, making it unclear in some instances if, when, and why an adjustment is made. For example, some researchers recommend correcting images for age effects even after age-matching patients and contols [44]. In an age-matched study, age is not a confounder, and adjusting for its relationship with

(4)
X
j
=
β
0
,
j
+
β
1
,
j
T
A
+
ϵ
j
,

where the
A similar procedure is to fit model (4) using the control group only [44]. We refer to this approach as the *control-adjusted MVPA*. In applications where there is not a clear control group, i.e., comparing two disease subclasses, a single reference group is chosen. Let

A comparison of the adjusted and control-adjusted MVPA features is displayed in Figure 4. The first two plots of Figure 4 show the original feature

Having formally defined the problem of confounding in MVPA, we now propose a general solution based on inverse probability weighting (IPW) [45–48]. We have already shown that weighting observations by the inverse probability of

The inverse probability weights are often unknown and must be estimated from the data. One way to estimate the weights is by positing a model and obtaining fitted values for the probability that

IPW can be naturally incorporated into some classification models such as logistic regression. Subject-level weighting can be accomplished in the soft-margin linear SVM framework defined in expression (2) by weighting the slack variables. Suppose the true weights

(5)
ξ
j
∗
≥
0
∀
j
=
1
,
…
,
n
∗
.

However, in the approximately balanced pseudo-population, some of the

in (5) are equivalent to

In fact, assuming all observations in the original

(6)
ξ
i
≥
0
∀
i
=
1
,
…
,
n
.

The previous argument suggests one could use the true weights

The IPW-SVM algorithm only works when the data are not linearly separable. Otherwise, there are no slack variables in the optimization problem to weight. To provide intuition, suppose we are trying to separate two points in two-dimensional space. The optimization problem is then the hard-margin linear SVM formulation:

Adding copies of the data only adds redundant constraints that do not affect the optimization. This is a major issue in neuroimaging because the data often have more features than observations and are thus almost always linearly separable. When

In this section we evaluate the finite sample performance of the IPW-SVM relative to the regression methods discussed in Section 3.1. We simulate training data from the following generative model with

(7)
ϵ
1
∼
N
o
r
m
a
l
(
0
p
×
1
,
Σ
1
)
,
ε
2
∼
N
o
r
m
a
l
(
0
p
×
1
,
Σ
2
)
,

where

For each of

We compare the performance of the IPW-SVM (IPW) to an unadjusted SVM (Unadjusted), a SVM after “regressing out”

The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (http://www.adni.loni.usc.edu) is a $60 million study funded by public and private resources including the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the Food and Drug Administration, private pharmaceutical companies, and non-profit organizations. The goals of the ADNI are to better understand progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as well as to determine effective biomarkers for disease diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment development. MCI is characterized by cognitive decline that does not generally interfere with normal daily function and is distinct from Alzheimer’s disease [57]. However, individuals with MCI are considered to be at risk for progression to Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, studying the development of MCI and factors associated with progression to Alzheimer’s disease is of critical scientific importance. In this analysis, we study the effects of confounding on the identification of multivariate patterns of atrophy in the brain that are associated with MCI.

We apply the IPW-SVM to structural MRIs from the ADNI database. Before performing group-level analyses, each subject’s MRI is passed through a series of preprocessing steps that facilitate between-subject comparability. We implemented a multi-atlas segmentation pipeline [58] to estimate the volumes of

Although the ADNI study was approximately matched on age and gender, a logistic regression of disease group on age in our sample returns an estimated odds ratio of 1.06 with 95% confidence interval

In general, all four methods perform similarly and return patterns that closely resemble the pattern learned from the matched data. Table 1 gives the

Table 1:

Method |
Distance |

IPW-SVM | 0.52 |

Unadjusted SVM | 0.76 |

Control-Adjusted SVM | 0.58 |

Adjusted SVM | 0.56 |

It should be noted that although there is a significant disease-age relationship in the observed data, it is unlikely representative of the true disease-age relationship in the population because the MCI cases are over-sampled. Thus, MVPA classifiers trained to study disease patterns in the brain may demonstrate suboptimal performance when classifying new subjects in the population. Dataset shift methods, or models that integrate imaging biomarkers with knowledge of the true disease-age relationship in the target population, may be applied to improve any MVPA imaging biomarkers derived from the ADNI data.

We have proposed a framework for addressing confounding in MVPA that weights individual subjects by the conditional probability of observed class given confounders, i.e., inverse probability weighting (IPW). When the goal of MVPA is to estimate complex disease patterns in the brain, using IPW to address confounding is more principled that the current practice of “regressing out” confounder effects separately at each voxel without regard to the correlation structure of the data. When machine learning predictive models such as the SVM are used to perform MVPA, the IPW approach can recover underlying patterns in the brain associated with disease in the presence of measured confounding.

We believe there are several advantages to addressing confounding in MVPA using IPW. First, as demonstrated by simulation results, IPW better estimates the target parameter of interest, which is the disease pattern that would be present under no confounding. In cases where a matched study is too expensive or otherwise infeasible, IPW methods will enable researchers to perform MVPA and obtain correct, reproducible results. Finally, IPW is simple and intuitive, and the general idea is well-established in the causal inference and statistics communities. Thus, future research aiming to perform inference on the estimated disease patterns can rely on existing theory. We are currently working on extending existing inference methods for MVPA [14, 59] to account for confounding.

Further exploring the effects of confounding on high-dimensional classification models is imperative for neuroimaging research and may greatly impact current practice in the field. An interesting avenue for future research would be to develop dimension reduction techniques that could be applied before or concurrently with MVPA that account for possible confounding in the data. Developing sensitivity analysis methods for assessing the role of confounding in MVPA also merits attention in future work.

Although we have focused on the use of SVMs for binary classification problems, the idea of subject-level weighting to address confounding applies more generally to machine learning techniques for a variety of classification problems. In practice, incorporating subject-level weights into black box machine learning methods may not always be straightforward, and implementation of IPW might require specific tailoring to each problem. For example, generalizied versions of the propensity score exist for exposures with more than two groups and continuous exposures [60, 61]. Intuitively, it seems that applying generalized propensity score methods to multiclass classification problems or support vector regression for a continuous exposure is a natural extension of the methods proposed in this work. We believe these extensions are non-trivial and warrant focused attention in future research.

1. Frackowiak R, Friston K, Frith C, Dolan R, Mazziotta J, (eds.). Human brain function. San Diego, CA: Academic Press USA, 1997. Search in Google Scholar

2. Friston KJ, Frith C, Liddle P, Frackowiak R. Comparing functional PET images: the assessment of significant change. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1991;11:690–9. Search in Google Scholar

3. Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ, Poline J-P, Frith CD, Frackowiak RS. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 1994;2:189–210. Search in Google Scholar

4. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Voxel-based morphometry – the methods. Neuroimage 2000;11:805–21. Search in Google Scholar

5. Davatzikos C, Genc A, Xu D, Resnick SM. Voxel-based morphometry using the RAVENS maps: methods and validation using simulated longitudinal atrophy. NeuroImage 2001;14:1361 – 1369. Search in Google Scholar

6. Craddock RC, Holtzheimer PE, Hu XP, Mayberg HS. Disease state prediction from resting state functional connectivity. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:1619–28. Search in Google Scholar

7. Cuingnet R, Rosso C, Chupin M, Lehricy S, Dormont D, Benali H, et al. Spatial regularization of SVM for the detection of diffusion alterations associated with stroke outcome. Med Image Anal 2011;15:729–37, Special Issue on the 2010 Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Search in Google Scholar

8. Davatzikos C, Bhatt P, Shaw LM, Batmanghelich KN, Trojanowski JQ. Prediction of MCI to AD conversion, via MRI, CSF biomarkers, and pattern classification. Neurobiol Aging 2011;32:2322.e19–2322.e27. Search in Google Scholar

9. Davatzikos C, Resnick S, Wu X, Parmpi P, Clark C. Individual patient diagnosis of AD and FTD via high-dimensional pattern classification of MRI. NeuroImage 2008;41:1220 – 1227. Search in Google Scholar

10. Davatzikos C, Ruparel K, Fan Y, Shen D, Acharyya M, Loughead J, et al. Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: application to lie detection. Neuroimage 2005;28:663–8. Search in Google Scholar

11. Davatzikos C, Xu F, An Y, Fan Y, Resnick SM. Longitudinal progression of Alzheimer’s-like patterns of atrophy in normal older adults: the spare-ad index. Brain 2009;132:2026–35. Search in Google Scholar

12. De Martino F, Valente G, Staeren N, Ashburner J, Goebel R, Formisano E. Combining multivariate voxel selection and support vector machines for mapping and classification of fMRI spatial patterns. Neuroimage 2008;43:44–58. Search in Google Scholar

13. Fan Y, Shen D, Gur RC, Gur RE, Davatzikos C. Compare: classification of morphological patterns using adaptive regional elements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2007;26:93–105. Search in Google Scholar

14. Gaonkar B, Davatzikos C. Analytic estimation of statistical significance maps for support vector machine based multi-variate image analysis and classification. NeuroImage 2013;78:270–283. Search in Google Scholar

15. Klöppel S, Stonnington CM, Chu C, Draganski B, Scahill RI, Rohrer JD, et al. Automatic classification of MR scans in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2008;131:681–9. Search in Google Scholar

16. Koutsouleris N, Meisenzahl EM, Davatzikos C, Bottlender R, Frodl T, Scheuerecker J, et al. Use of neuroanatomical pattern classification to identify subjects in at-risk mental states of psychosis and predict disease transition. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009;66:700–12. Search in Google Scholar

17. Langs G, Menze BH, Lashkari D, Golland P. Detecting stable distributed patterns of brain activation using gini contrast. NeuroImage 2011;56:497–507. Search in Google Scholar

18. Mingoia G, Wagner G, Langbein K, Maitra R, Smesny S, Dietzek M, et al. Default mode network activity in schizophrenia studied at resting state using probabilistic ICA. Schizophrenia research 2012;138:143–9. Search in Google Scholar

19. Moura˜o-Miranda J, Bokde AL, Born C, Hampel H, Stetter M. Classifying brain states and determining the discriminating activation patterns: support vector machine on functional MRI data. NeuroImage 2005;28:980–95. Search in Google Scholar

20. Pereira F. Beyond brain blobs: machine learning classifiers as instruments for analyzing functional magnetic resonance imaging data. ProQuest, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

21. Reiss PT, Ogden RT. Functional generalized linear models with images as predictors. Biometrics 2010;66:61–9. Search in Google Scholar

22. Richiardi J, Eryilmaz H, Schwartz S, Vuilleumier P, Van De Ville D. Decoding brain states from fMRI connectivity graphs. Neuroimage 2011;56:616–26. Search in Google Scholar

23. Sabuncu MR, Van Leemput K. The relevance voxel machine (rvoxm): a bayesian method for image-based prediction. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2011. Springer, 2011: 99–106. Search in Google Scholar

24. Vemuri P, Gunter JL, Senjem ML, Whitwell JL, Kantarci K, Knopman DS, et al. Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis in individual subjects using structural MR images: validation studies. Neuroimage 2008;39:1186–97. Search in Google Scholar

25. Venkataraman A, Rathi Y, Kubicki M, Westin C-F, Golland P. Joint modeling of anatomical and functional connectivity for population studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012;31:164–82. Search in Google Scholar

26. Wang Z, Childress AR, Wang J, Detre JA. Support vector machine learning-based fMRI data group analysis. NeuroImage 2007;36:1139–51. Search in Google Scholar

27. Xu L, Groth KM, Pearlson G, Schretlen DJ, Calhoun VD. Source based morphometry: the use of independent component analysis to identify gray matter differences with application to schizophrenia. Hum Brain Mapping 2009;30:711–24. Search in Google Scholar

28. Raz N, Rodrigue KM. Differential aging of the brain: patterns, cognitive correlates and modify. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2006;30:730–48. Search in Google Scholar

29. Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Machine Learning 1995;20:273– 297. Search in Google Scholar

30. Vapnik V. The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer: Springer Science & Business Media, 2000. Search in Google Scholar

31. Schölkopf B, Tsuda K, Vert J-P. Kernel methods in computational biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

32. Sun D, van Erp TG, Thompson PM, Bearden CE, Daley M, Kushan L, et al. Elucidating a magnetic resonance imaging-based neuroanatomic biomarker for psychosis: classification analysis using probabilistic brain atlas and machine learning algorithms. Biol Psychiatry 2009;66:1055–60. Search in Google Scholar

33. Reiss PT, Ogden RT. Functional principal component regression and functional partial least squares. J Am Stat Assoc 2007;102:984–96. Search in Google Scholar

34. Zipunnikov V, Caffo B, Yousem DM, Davatzikos C, Schwartz BS, Crainiceanu C. Functional principal component model for high-dimensional brain imaging. NeuroImage 2011;58:772–84. Search in Google Scholar

35. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. The elements of statistical learning. Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin: Springer series in statistics, 2001. Search in Google Scholar

36. Orru G, Pettersson-Yeo W, Marquand AF, Sartori G, Mechelli A. Using support vector machine to identify imaging biomarkers of neurological and psyciatric disease: a critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012;36:1140–52. Search in Google Scholar

37. Bendfeldt K, Kl¨oppel S, Nichols TE, Smieskova R, Kuster P, Traud S, et al. Multivariate pattern classification of gray matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 2012;60:400–8. Search in Google Scholar

38. Liu F, Guo W, Yu D, Gao Q, Gao K, Xue Z, et al. Classification of different therapeutic responses of major depressive disorder with multivariate pattern analysis method based on structural MR scans. PLoS One 2012;7:e40968. Search in Google Scholar

39. Gong Q, Wu Q, Scarpazza C, Lui S, Jia Z, Marquand A, et al. Prognostic prediction of therapeutic response in depression using high-fi mr imaging. Neuroimage 2011;55:1497–503. Search in Google Scholar

40. Costafreda SG, Chu C, Ashburner J, Fu CH. Prognostic and diagnostic potential of the structural neuroanatomy of depression. PLoS One 2009;4:e6353. Search in Google Scholar

41. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1986;81:945–60. Search in Google Scholar

42. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J Educ Psychol 1974;66:688. Search in Google Scholar

43. Li L, Rakitsch B, Borgwardt K. ccsvm: correcting support vector machines for confounding factors in biological data classification. Bioinformatics 2011;27:i342– i348. Search in Google Scholar

44. Dukart J, Schroeter ML, Mueller K. Age correction in dementia – matching to a healthy brain. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e22193. Search in Google Scholar

45. Cole SR, Hern´an MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:656–64. Search in Google Scholar

46. Hern´an MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2006;60:578–86. Search in Google Scholar

47. Robins JM. Marginal structural models. In: Proceedings of the Section on Bayesian Statistical Science. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, 1998: 1–10. Search in Google Scholar

48. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000;11:550–60. Search in Google Scholar

49. Moreno-Torres JG, Raeder T, Alaiz-Rodr´ıGuez R, Chawla NV, Herrera F. A unifying view on dataset shift in classification. Pattern Recognit 2012;45:521– 530. Search in Google Scholar

50. Quionero-Candela J, Sugiyama M, Schwaighofer A, Lawrence ND. Dataset shift in machine learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009. Search in Google Scholar

51. Zadrozny B. Learning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 2004:114. Search in Google Scholar

52. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate behavioral research 2011;46:399–424. Search in Google Scholar

53. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55. Search in Google Scholar

54. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med 2010;29:337–46. Search in Google Scholar

55. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

56. Chang C-C, Lin C-J. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2011;2:27:1–27:27. Search in Google Scholar

57. Gauthier S, Reisberg B, Zaudig M, Petersen RC, Ritchie K, Broich K, et al. Mild cognitive impairment. The Lancet 2006;367:1262–70. Search in Google Scholar

58. Doshi J, Erus G, Ou Y, Gaonkar B, Davatzikos C. Multi-atlas skull-stripping. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1566–76. Search in Google Scholar

59. Gaonkar B, Shinohara RT, Davatzikos C, Initiative ADN, et al. Interpreting support vector machine models for multivariate group wise analysis in neuroimaging. Med Image Anal 2015;24(1):190–204. Search in Google Scholar

60. Hirano K, Imbens GW. The propensity score with continuous treatments. Appl Bayesian Model Causal Inference Incomplete-Data Perspect 2004;226164:73–84. Search in Google Scholar

61. Imbens GW. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 2000;87:706–10. Search in Google Scholar

62. Weichwald S, Meyer T, Özdenizci O, Schölkopf B, Ball T, Grosse-Wentrup M. Causal interpretation rules for encoding and decoding models in neuroimaging. NeuroImage 2015;110:4859. Search in Google Scholar

©2016 by De Gruyter