Exploration, inference and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine

Abstract : The last decades saw dramatic progress in brain research. These advances were often buttressed by probing single variables to make circumscribed discoveries, typically through null hypothesis significance testing. New ways for generating massive data fueled tension between the traditional methodology, used to infer statistically relevant effects in carefully-chosen variables, and pattern-learning algorithms, used to identify predictive signatures by searching through abundant information. In this article, we detail the antagonistic philosophies behind two quantitative approaches: certifying robust effects in understandable variables, and evaluating how accurately a built model can forecast future outcomes. We discourage choosing analysis tools via categories like 'statistics' or 'machine learning'. Rather, to establish reproducible knowledge about the brain, we advocate prioritizing tools in view of the core motivation of each quantitative analysis: aiming towards mechanistic insight, or optimizing predictive accuracy.
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [55 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02044120
Contributor : Danilo Bzdok <>
Submitted on : Thursday, February 21, 2019 - 12:12:30 PM
Last modification on : Monday, February 10, 2020 - 6:13:44 PM
Long-term archiving on: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - 4:42:14 PM

Files

TINS_opinion_R4_feb1_clean.pdf
Files produced by the author(s)

Identifiers

Citation

Danilo Bzdok, John Ioannidis. Exploration, inference and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine. Trends in Neurosciences, Elsevier, 2019, ⟨10.1016/j.tins.2019.02.001⟩. ⟨hal-02044120⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

159

Files downloads

738