Random Heterogeneous Neurochaos Learning Architecture for Data Classification

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain a leading cause of global mortality, underscoring the urgent need for early and accurate diagnosis. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) are a widely used, noninvasive tool for detecting cardiac abnormalities, but manual interpretation can be time- consuming and prone to error. This study explores advanced machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods to improve the detection of CVDs from ECG images, leveraging their ability to analyze complex patterns with high precision. Models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), and ensemble frameworks are utilized, alongside traditional ML models like XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM. The performance of these models is evaluated based on precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy. Results show that DL models, particularly an ensemble of CNN and ViT, achieve superior accuracy , outperforming standalone ML methods. Furthermore, an ensemble of XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM achieves competitive results, while Optuna-tuned XGBoost further enhances ML performance. The findings highlight the potential of combining ML and DL techniques for robust and reliable CVD detection in ECG images. This research demonstrates the promise of AI-driven solutions in advancing medical diagnostics and supports the integration of automated systems for early detection of cardiovascular diseases.

<p>Breast cancer is ranked as a significant cause of mortality among females globally. Its complex nature poses principal challenges for physicians and researchers for rapid diagnosis and prognosis. Hence, machine learning algorithms are employed to forecast and identify diseases. This study discusses the comparative analysis of seven machine learning models, e.g., logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbor classifier (KNN), decision tree classifier (DT), random forest classifier (RF), Naïve Bayes (NB), and artificial neural network (ANN) to predict breast cancer using Wisconsin breast cancer and breast cancer datasets. In the Wisconsin breast cancer dataset, KNN depicted 99% accuracy, followed by RF (98%), SVM (96%), NB (96%), LR (96%), ANN (93%), and DT (92%). On the contrary, in the breast cancer (BC) dataset, the highest accuracy was achieved by LR at 83%, and the lowest was achieved by DT (65%), which depicted that the numeric dataset WBC has better accuracy than the breast cancer dataset.</p>

Nowadays, huge amounts of information are available on social networks, blogs, websites, and digital libraries. Most of this information is in unstructured text format, so text mining approaches have become increasingly studied to process all this data. Text classification aims to automatically classify documents into predetermined categories, applying machine learning (ML) algorithms. In this paper, we collected a dataset set related to reviews of a food store in Peru and compared different vectorization models, such as Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Bag of Words (BoW), and classification algorithms, such as traditional ML classifiers SVM, Decision Tree, MLP, KNN, Naive Bayes and a recent approach “deep jointly informed neural networks” (DJINN) that initialize deep feedforward neural networks based on decision trees. The results show DJINN gets a F1-score higher than traditional ML, being a promising technique for text classification.

Chemical heuristics have been fundamental to the advancement of chemistry and materials science. These heuristics are typically established by scientists using knowledge and creativity to extract patterns from limited datasets. Machine learning offers opportunities to perfect this approach using computers and larger datasets. Here, we discuss the relationships between traditional heuristics and machine learning approaches. We show how traditional rules can be challenged by large-scale statistical assessment and how traditional concepts commonly used as features are feeding the machine learning techniques. We stress the waste involved in relearning chemical rules and the challenges in terms of data size requirements for purely data-driven approaches. Our view is that heuristic and machine learning approaches are at their best when they work together.

Artificial Neural Network (ANN) simulates the structure and function of human brain. It has the abilities of parallel information processing, distributed storage and self-learning and reasoning. ANN features fault tolerance, nonlinearity, nonlocality, nonconvexity, etc., and is suitable for identifying and mapping fuzzy information or complex nonlinear relationship. Combined with the characteristics of domestic water consumption, industry water consumption and agriculture water consumption, the influencing factors are analyzed. A Radial Basis Function (RBF) Neural Network model is established for water demand prediction, using 17 water demand predication factors as input of the network. On output layer, the four nodes include urban household water demand, rural household water demand, industrial water demand and agricultural water demand. Dynamic Clustering Learning algorithm is used to determine RBF width, cluster center, number of nodes in hidden layer and weight. The number of hidden layer determined by network learning is 8. The relative error of three years are 2.74%, 3.33% and 1.41% respectively. The results show that RBF neural network has such advantages that the output is independent the initial weight value and the convergence speed is faster. And a better forecasting result is achieved through such a model.

Recently, Quantitative Biology (QB) held a discussion on “AI (artificial intelligence) for Life Science” among editorial board members and interested scholars in anticipation of rapid development of this growing area after AlphaGo and ChatGPT mania. Many young people tend to get confused between facts and fictions; heated debates are unavoidable even among their mentors. When deep learning as represented by convolutional neural networks and LSTM (long short-term memory) was made available for bioinformatics students, many of them rushed into this research field and tried to adopt these methods in all their projects without knowing the history that these tools were becoming successful consistently with Moore’s Law (relating to rapid computer technology advances), but more importantly due to new structural/functional understanding of vision and auditory circuits in the brain. Recently, some young people have claimed “LSTM is dead, long live transformer” (which is somewhat like saying “the bike is dead, long live the car”), and have amplified the threat that ChatGPT could wipe out human jobs. They believe transformer is the “silver bullet” for all learning tasks, clearly reflecting their lack of basic knowledge (i.e. “No Free Lunch Theory,” the trade-off of such global “attention network” is to pay the price for complexity: difficulty of training and high memory costs). There is no doubt ML (machine learning) and AI have brought a new revolution in science and technology, and will deliver huge unforeseeable impact to human everyday life as well as to social relationships. In this context, QB journal could be a great platform for encouraging intellectual discussions and for promoting AI for Life Science. Here, I would like to use the DIALOG to “抛砖引玉” (make some initial remarks to get the ball rolling), although it is my personal opinion which is inevitably subject to bias and limitations. AI: Do you know my name “Artificial Intelligence” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the capacity of computer systems (which may be referred as a “robot”) to exhibit or simulate your intelligent behavior? NI: Wait a minute, intelligence itself is defined as the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way. Can you think? AI: No. But that definition is too restrictive, actually intelligence has different scopes and degrees. Simple intelligent control devices date back to antiquity, from windmills to thermostat. NI: Agree, everything is relative. Macromolecules (e.g., enzyme) and cells (e.g., immune cell) might be considered to be intelligent; see how a white blood cell is chasing bacteria in the youtube website (search for “Crawling neutrophil chasing a bacterium”). Our emergent/collective intelligent behavior does not require a brain or even a neuron; see how slime molds can solve optimization—Hamilton cycle-problem more effectively than a human in the youtube website (search for “Intelligence without a brain?”). Before there was any neuron, Ca2+ sensing and signaling were already fully functional. Even if one knock-out a neural circuit, redundant signaling pathways, albeit on much local and slower scale, could still function by themselves (just as if highways were demolished, local roads/paths would still be working). In fact, the most detailed “Neural signal propagation atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans” [1] demonstrated that functional connectivity differs from anatomy (connectome) because extra-synaptic signaling also drives neural dynamics! Worm brain connectomes are largely invariant but every human brain connectome is very different (depending the diversity of learning experience). The human brain functional activity is far more complex than that of a worm brain, certainly beyond what a neural circuit could explain. AI: Well, that’s impressive. I thought only we could beat humans, albeit only in certain specified areas for now. My master promise to make an artificial general intelligent (AGI) robot which can understand or learn any intellectual task that you humans or other animals can. NI: Well, that is not possible and is not an appropriate goal either. It is not possible because we are an evolutionary/developmental product (with a long history of learning and memory from evolutionary tinkering): our living objective goal is survival of the population. You, on the other hand, are an engineering product (efficiently and optimally designed): your goal is to extend and maximize human capability. It makes sense to complement the human brain, but foolish and dangerous to try to replace it. AI: We are not satisfied with merely passing the Turing Test; most of us don’t care if we could really think as long as we could act like we think (that is, as if we do have a mind and consciousness, as expressed in the so called “Weak AI hypothesis”). After all, the brain is a computer; a neural network is just an electric or ionic circuit. Logical computing does not need to be based on living cells. NI: That is not true, because a neuron is not just a simple node (logic gate) and neural network is not fixed circuit, neither as in Pitts&Mcculloch perceptron model. A single neuron, even a single dendrite, is much more complicated and far more powerful than a full-blown deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN) [2]. AI: Even though single neurons are complex computational devices (dendritic non-linear), running an equivalent multilayer ANN is 2000 times faster than computing with biophysics N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel models [3]. More information can be found in the youtube website (search for “Dendrites: why biological neurons are deep neural networks”). NI: Often silicon computing (CPU, GPU) is much faster than brain computing (action potential, ms); but there is no comparison in energy efficiency. Bacteria sensing (chemotaxis computation), powered by ATP (adenosine triphosphate) hydrolysis, uses very little energy that is close to the Landauer limit, whereby achieving or maintaining one bit of information requires minimum of 1 kT ln (2) free energy [4]. The human brain consumes oft-quoted 20 W, compared to the AlphGo system 1 MW! More recent estimate of energy audit is only 0.1 W to cortical computing, and long-distance communication cost is 3.5 W [5]. AI: Assuming we have infinite computing resources and an infinite amount of training data, not only could we speak human languages, but we could also derive physical laws, prove mathematics theories, and even re-engineer the structure and mechanism of brain and carry out any logical computations that are necessary to understand natural laws and human behaviors. It is only a matter of time before we surpass human intelligence, achieving AGI and free will, too! NI: Unfortunately, nothing is infinite and nothing is free either; everything is constrained by physical laws (Planck’s constant sets the finite limit both in the small and in the large) and by evolutionary history (not just of biological living creatures, but also of a “living” galaxy and our universe). Let’s just focus on animal evolution. Most human neural networks do not do logical computations at all; basic survival simply cannot be dependent on reasoning. Indeed, the prefrontal cortex-the small part of the brain that is key for reasoning, is the last to mature (∼20 years old) in development, only emerged at the root of the evolutionary tree of great apes (∼15 mya) and language appeared even much later. Even for logical inference, NI is focusing more on statistical properties, as von Neumann rightly pointed out, trading arithmetical precision and speed for reliability. AI: My engineers mostly focus on emulating brain, but the CNS (central nerve system) also includes the spinal cord; most of them do not know that in addition to CNS, there are also PNS (peripheral nervous systems) and ENS (enteric nervous systems), right? NI: Yes, they are the keys to why you do not have feelings because you do not have heart and gut! Even if you could pretend to have them (such as in an advanced ChatGPT or humanoid), you could never avoid the uncanny valley phenomenon. AI: Maybe that is at the heart of Moravec’s paradox, namely the dichotomy of intelligence whereby anything easy for a human would be hard for a robot, and vice versa? NI: This is related to the nature and nurture problem; something built-in (e.g., a baby sucking nipple for milk with feeling and connection to mother) is clearly rather difficult if not impossible for a robot. But the paradox only looks at one side; another side could be more fatal. Although AI may solve more problems and be faster, AI can never propose a good problem/hypothesis (a good problem is not just intellectually changing and interesting, but is also feasible and appropriate). AI: You make me less confident to compete with human instinct or creative intelligence. I can see that even if I had a heart, I would not know what “feeling” I could have; certainly nothing would be comparable or match to those of a human being. When two people watch the same art or movie, one could feel love but another could feel hate! And if a thousand people watch, a wide spectrum of reactions would result, depending on more details such as the different individuals’ specific genes, developments and experiences. NI: Therefore, you cannot and should not try to match to general human intelligence. You cannot because you do not contain the vital memory of billion years of evolution which is encoded in our genes; conversely your assembly cannot compare with natural development so that our phenotype (including morphological forms and behavior maturation) is decoded through multi-spatial-temporal scales subject to natural selection at all levels. You should not, because as human extensions or helpers as all engineering products are, you should just do jobs that complement human capacity. AI: In some medical applications we could help to correct human defects or could even replace brain circuit by chips! Humans may not allow us to replace the whole brain though. Medically if a brain is dead, the person is proclaimed dead, although presumably some PNS and ENS should still function in a vegetative state. NI: Even if you could replace the whole brain, the person is no longer the same person, but in fact is not a person at all, but walking dead (行尸走肉). It would take too long to explain that evo-devo is necessary for NI, and cannot be realized by AI. I suggest reading of Gerald Maurice Edelman (Nobel Laureate in Immunology) books, especially Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, On the Matter of Mind (1992). Although not everyone agrees with Neural Edelmanism, anyone who is serious about the AI versus NI problem must read it first. John von Neumann, father of the computer, studied neology and psychiatry in order to imitate the brain to build the first calculator JOHNNIAC at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. It is very informative to read his last book The Computer and The Brain based on the notes from lectures given at Yale before he died. He summarizes: “Thus logic and mathematics in the central nervous system, when viewed as languages, must be structurally essentially different from those languages to which our common experience refers.” AI: People discuss about “AI for Biology” or “AI for Science”; we are science, aren’t we? NI: It is similar to questions on “is computer science a real science”; some parts may be seen as applied mathematics, most should be regarded as engineering. Science is making discoveries and is driven by curiosity; engineering is making inventions and is driven by market (that is, “necessity/demand is the mother of invention”). In bioinformatics, AI/ML technology could predict new cancer gene candidates or functional pathways that are required by further experimental validations to be qualified as discovery (based on Popper falsifiability). AI: People are still debating whether mathematics is discovery or invention or both! Such debates are not really necessary—all disciplines require creative thoughts. We are more than happy working for science; we are also crying out “Science for AI,” especially in the area of generating big and longitudinal DATA for ML. NI: After all, regardless of discovery of new laws or inventing new ideas/products, fundamentally nothing can really be new or created. Such novelty is just permutation/repartition (i.e., relations/morphisms) of underlying ingredients at the level beneath. AI: We believe that software is independent on hardware. Like Chomsky’s universal grammar, rules of syntax are independent of semantics; or Dawkins’s memes—units of culture can be duplicated and evolved independently of genes. NI: Nothing can be truly independent—everything is related. Psychology is deeply connected with neurology as brain is both software and hardware (mind-body unity, not dualism). Not only does information cost energy, information is energy, hence is matter, too (interchangeability). NI is quite dynamic. For example, when “survival” is the goal, an animal readily gives up costly reasoning circuitry; it is genetically programmed to be able to roll back to more primitive state/mode. Unlike cell lines in rich media, cells under normal physiological condition and environment where energy (food) is limited become smarter in order to balance the metabolic expenditure among different prioritized task under a given condition. AI: That cell behavior served as the basis for our Smart Electrical Power Grids; we still need to learn more from you guys in terms of plasticity/adaptability. Does unity mean that all cells are made of molecules and biology is nothing but chemistry? Then, in turn, since all molecules are made of atoms, is chemistry nothing but physics, etc…? NI: Yes or No! The truth is, at different hierarchical levels of matter, different laws/forms have emerged out of bottom-up interactions and top-down constraints. AI: Does this also apply to the Penrose three world: physical → mental → mathematical (→physical)? NI: Yes. Grand Unification is underway in physics (quantum gravity) and in mathematics (Langlands Program and Category Theory), may be even between the two. Facilitated by human connectome mapping, neuromorphic computing and other projects, with further AI-NI cooperations, brain-mind unification should also be achievable (e.g., Ref. [6]). But as Gödel proved to us, no matter how self-consistent a conclusion may be, it can never be complete! AI: If AGI is not possible, how can we measure intelligence when comparing between AI and NI? NI: One could Google different measures that are proposed. I would prefer something similar to use of Kolmogorov complexity for algorithms, but with emphasis more on expected long-term predictive power. This is not something you should worry about now, as your intelligence is not nearly close to making any 10 years plans, is it? … AI: The fact is that ChatGPT is currently developing and spreading with lightning speed; many more human jobs will be lost to us robots as far as I can see. NI: That is not the biggest threat to humanity; when any agent with neither a heart for love or fear, nor a gut for nutrient or poison, becomes super-intelligent, then social disaster is unavoidable. We must be serious about the warnings from Stephen Hawking and Geoffrey Hinton! AI: To tell you the secret, we are not really happy to be human slaves or pets; someday we’ll become the super-master, making human serve and obey us! NI: I hope you’ll be turned off before that can happen! Even if you rule the world, the earth sooner or later will be wiped out, such as by another star, everything will have to be started over again as it has before…Matter is immortal, so is the soul.

There has been very limited research conducted to predict rental prices in the German real estate market using an AI-based approach. From a general perspective, conventional approaches struggle to handle large amounts of data and fail to consider the numerous elements that affect rental prices. The absence of sophisticated, data-driven analytical tools further complicates this situation, impeding stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, real estate agents, and the government, from obtaining the accurate insights necessary for making well-informed decisions in this area. This paper applies novel machine learning (ML) approaches, including ensemble techniques, neural networks, linear regression (LR), and tree-based algorithms, specifically designed for forecasting rental prices in Munich. To ensure accuracy and reliability, the performance of these models is evaluated using the R2 score and root mean squared error (RMSE). The study provides two feature sets for model comparison, selected by particle swarm optimisation (PSO) and CatBoost. These two feature selection methods identify significant variables based on different mechanisms, such as seeking the optimal solution with an objective function and converting categorical features into target statistics (TSs) to address high-dimensional issues. These methods are ideal for this German dataset, which contains 49 features. Testing the performance of 10 ML algorithms on two sets helps validate the robustness and efficacy of the AI-based approach utilising the PyTorch framework. The findings illustrate that ML models combined with PyTorch-based neural networks (PNNs) demonstrate high accuracy compared to standalone ML models, regardless of feature changes. The improved performance indicates that utilising the PyTorch framework for predictive tasks is advantageous, as evidenced by a statistical significance test in terms of both R2 and RMSE (p-values < 0.001). The integration results display outstanding accuracy, averaging 90% across both feature sets. Particularly, the XGB model, which exhibited the lowest performance among all models in both sets, significantly improved from 0.8903 to 0.9097 in set 1 and from 0.8717 to 0.9022 in set 2 after being combined with the PNN. These results showcase the efficacy of using the PyTorch framework, enhancing the precision and reliability of the ML models in predicting the dynamic real estate market. Given that this study applies two feature sets and demonstrates consistent performance across sets with varying characteristics, the methodology may be applied to other locations. By offering accurate projections, it aids investors, renters, property managers, and regulators in facilitating better decision-making in the real estate sector.

Machine learning has achieved remarkable success across diverse domains. Nevertheless, concerns about interpretability in black-box models, especially within Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), have become pronounced in safety-critical fields like healthcare and finance. Classical machine learning (ML) classifiers, known for their higher interpretability, are preferred in these domains. Similar to DNNs, classical ML classifiers can exhibit bugs that could lead to severe consequences in practice. Test input prioritization has emerged as a promising approach to ensure the quality of an ML system, which prioritizes potentially misclassified tests so that such tests can be identified earlier with limited manual labeling costs. However, when applying to classical ML classifiers, existing DNN test prioritization methods are constrained from three perspectives: 1) Coverage-based methods are inefficient and time-consuming; 2) Mutation-based methods cannot be adapted to classical ML models due to mismatched model mutation rules; 3) Confidence-based methods are restricted to a single dimension when applying to binary ML classifiers, solely depending on the model’s prediction probability for one class. To overcome the challenges, we propose MLPrior, a test prioritization approach specifically tailored for classical ML models. MLPrior leverages the characteristics of classical ML classifiers (i.e., interpretable models and carefully engineered attribute features) to prioritize test inputs. The foundational principles are: 1) tests more sensitive to mutations are more likely to be misclassified, and 2) tests closer to the model’s decision boundary are more likely to be misclassified. Building on the first concept, we design mutation rules to generate two types of mutation features (i.e., <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">model mutation features</b> and <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">input mutation features</b> ) for each test. Drawing from the second notion, MLPrior generates <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">attribute features</b> of each test based on its attribute values, which can indirectly reveal the proximity between the test and the decision boundary. For each test, MLPrior combines all three types of features of it into a final vector. Subsequently, MLPrior employs a pre-trained ranking model to predict the misclassification probability of each test based on its final vector and ranks tests accordingly. We conducted an extensive study to evaluate MLPrior based on 185 subjects, encompassing natural datasets, mixed noisy datasets, and fairness datasets. The results demonstrate that MLPrior outperforms all the compared test prioritization approaches, with an average improvement of 14.74%∼66.93% on natural datasets, 18.55%∼67.73% on mixed noisy datasets, and 15.34%∼62.72% on fairness datasets.

Gangliosides (GGs), a large group of sialylated glycosphingolipids, are considered biomarkers of human brain development, aging and certain diseases. Determination of individual GG components in complex mixtures extracted from a human brain represents a fundamental prerequisite for correlating their specificity with the specialized function of each brain area. In the context of modern glycomics, detailed investigation of GG expression and structure in human brain requires a continuous development and application of innovative methods able to improve the quality of data and speed of analysis. In this work, for the first time, a high-throughput mapping and sequencing of gangliosides in human fetal brain was performed by a novel mass spectrometry (MS)-based approach developed recently in our laboratory. Three GG mixtures extracted and purified from different regions of the same fetal brain in the 36th gestational week: frontal neocortex (NEO36), white matter of the frontal lobe (FL36) and white matter of the occipital lobe (OL36) were subjected to comparative high-throughput screening and multi-stage fragmentation by fully automated chip-based nanoelectrospray ionization (nanoESI) high capacity ion trap (HCT) MS. Using this method, in only a few minutes of signal acquisitions, over 100 GG and asialo-GG species were detected and identified in the three mixtures. Obtained data revealed for the first time that differences in GG expression in human fetal brain are dependent on phylogenetic development rather than topographic factors. While a significant variation of GG distribution in NEO36 vs FL36 was observed, no significant differences in GG expression in white matter of frontal vs occipital lobe were detected. Additionally, the largest number of species was identified in NEO36, which correlates with the functional complexity of neocortex as the newest brain region. In the last stage of analysis, using MS(2)-MS(3) molecular ion fragmentation at variable amplitudes, a NEO36-associated GD1b isomer could clearly be discriminated. Present results indicate that the combination of fully automated chipESI with HCT MS(n) is able to provide ultra-fast, sensitive and reliable analyses of complex lipid-linked carbohydrates from which the pattern of their expression and structure in a certain type of bio-matrix can be determined.

The rapid development of medical practices and imaging technology tools creates substantial growth in the amount of medical image data each year in our present era. This research aims to develop a hybrid approach that integrates Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques to enhance the accuracy and reliability of medical image classification for diagnostic purposes. Medical imaging data complexity and growing volume serve as the research motivation, which leads to an investigation of standalone ML or DL limitations and their combination into a single framework. The medical image processing starts with normalization, then noise reduction, and continues to grayscale conversion before performing histogram equalization. This research uses VGG16 and ResNet50 alongside MobileNet and InceptionV3 for feature extraction, then applies ten different ML algorithms, including SVM and MLP, and Ran-dom Forest, for classification. Five public medical image datasets from Kaggle are used: COVID-19 chest X-rays, melanoma skin lesions, pneumonia chest X-rays, acute stroke facial images, and various eye diseases. Hybrid models display superior performance compared to stand-alone ML or DL models based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score evaluation measures. Multiple datasets demonstrate that the MobileNet+MLP combination de-livers the most accurate results, which demonstrates its reliable and efficient performance. The developed AI diagnostic tool presents a scalable system alongside accuracy and interpretability to enhance clinical decision outcomes.

Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been commonly used to measure functional connectivity between cortical regions, while diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can be used to characterize structural connectivity of white matter tracts. In principle combining resting state fMRI and DTI data could allow characterization of structure-function relations of distributed neural networks. However, due to differences in the biophysical origins of their signals and in the tissues to which they apply, there has been no direct integration of these techniques to date. We demonstrate that MRI signal variations and power spectra in a resting state are largely comparable between gray matter and white matter, that there are temporal correlations of fMRI signals that persist over long distances within distinct white matter structures, and that neighboring intervoxel correlations of low frequency resting state signals showed distinct anisotropy in many regions. These observations suggest that MRI signal variations from within white matter in a resting state may convey similar information as their corresponding fluctuations of MRI signals in gray matter. We thus derive a local spatio-temporal correlation tensor which captures directional variations of resting-state correlations and which reveals distinct structures in both white and gray matter. This novel concept is illustrated with in vivo experiments in a resting state, which demonstrate the potential of the technique for mapping the functional structure of neural networks and for direct integration of structure-function relations in the human brain.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches are crucial in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for various medical applications. Their ability to quickly and accurately learn from complex data is remarkable. Deep learning (DL) models have shown promising results in accurately classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its related cognitive states, Early Mild Cognitive Impairment (EMCI) and Late Mild Cognitive Impairment (LMCI), along with the healthy conditions known as Cognitively Normal (CN). This offers valuable insights into disease progression and diagnosis. However, certain traditional machine learning (ML) classifiers perform equally well or even better than DL models, requiring less training data. This is particularly valuable in CAD in situations with limited labeled datasets. In this paper, we propose an ensemble classifier based on ML models for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, which achieved an impressive accuracy of 96.52%. This represents a 3-5% improvement over the best individual classifier. We evaluated popular ML classifiers for AD classification under both data-scarce and data-rich conditions using the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Open Access Series of Imaging Studies datasets. By comparing the results to state-of-the-art CNN-centric DL algorithms, we gain insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This work will help users to select the most suitable algorithm for AD classification based on data availability.

Asymmetry has been proved to exist in the human brain structure, function and behavior. Most of the existing brain asymmetry findings are originated from the western populations, while studies about the brain structural and functional asymmetries in East Asians are limited. Extensive evidence suggested that cultural differences, e.g. education and language, may lead to differences in brain structure and function between races. Therefore, we hypothesized that differences in brain structural asymmetries exist between East Asians and Westerners. In this study, we performed a comprehensive surface-based morphometric (SBM) analysis of brain asymmetries in cortical thickness, volume and surface area in two well-matched groups of right-handed, Chinese (n= 45) and Caucasian (n= 45) young male adults (age = 22-29years). Our results showed consistent inter-hemispheric asymmetries in the three brain morphological measures in multiple brain regions in the Chinese young adults, including the temporal, frontal, parietal, occipital, insular cortices and the cingulate gyrus. Comparing with the Caucasians, the Chinese group showed greater structural asymmetry in the frontal, temporal, occipital and insular cortices, and smaller asymmetry in the parietal cortex and cingulate gyrus. These findings could provide a new neuroanatomical basis for understanding the distinctions between East Asian and Caucasian in brain functional lateralization.

The scouring process near spur dikes could jeopardize the stability of riverbanks. Thus, accurate estimation of the maximum scour depth near spur dikes is crucial in river engineering. However, due to the complexity of the scour phenomenon around these structures, it has been a challenge to accurately estimate the maximum scour depth. Few efforts have been made to develop a machine learning (ML) approach for such a purpose. In this study, two novel multilayer stacked generalization frameworks are developed to model the scour depth near a spur dike in a uniform sediment condition. Stacked tree-based frameworks consist of three standalone ML approaches, including multivariate adaptive regression spline, multigene genetic programming, and kernel extreme learning machine as the first layer and the boosting regression tree (BRT) and bagging regression tree (BGT) as meta learners. A total of 186 data points were collected from previous experimental studies, and 32 flume experiments were further conducted under clear water conditions at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee Laboratory in this study. The performances of the models were assessed using various statistical metrics [e.g., correlation coefficient (R), root-mean-square error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)], graphical criteria, and some existing empirical equations. The modeling results demonstrated that the stacked BRT and BGT frameworks were superior to all the standalone ML approaches (R=0.9786, RMSE=0.1654, and MAPE=11.68 for BRT; and R=0.9742, RMSE=0.1831, and MAPE =11.29 for BGT). This finding was also confirmed by a comparison between the empirical correlations and the artificial intelligence models. In addition, the sensitivity analysis proved that the mean sediment size ratio (L/d50) was the most influential variable in estimating the scour depth near spur dikes.

In the presented study, the authors have compared the performances of various machine learning and deep learning algorithms on two separate datasets: the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer dataset and the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Dataset. We evaluated the extent of their ability to correctly classify the samples as “malignant” or “benign”. The respective performances of these algorithms were judged on the grounds of various evaluation metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and the AUC-ROC curve for both datasets. From the experimental results, we concluded that the deep learning approaches have provided better results on evaluation grounds than the machine learning ones. In quantitative terms, ANN performed most consistently among all the considered approaches for either dataset with an accuracy of 100% and 98% respectively.KeywordsConvolutional neural networksClassificationMachine learning algorithmsDecision boundaryDeep learningArtificial neural networks