Abstract
Objective This study investigates the potential advantages of hyperbolic convolutional neural networks (HCNNs) over traditional convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in neuroimaging tasks.
Materials and Methods We conducted a comparative analysis of HCNNs and CNNs across various medical imaging modalities and diseases, with a focus on a compiled multi-modality neuroimaging dataset. The models were assessed for performance parity, robustness to adversarial attacks, semantic organization of embedding spaces, and generalizability. Zero-shot evaluations were also performed with ischemic stroke non-contrast CT images.
Results HCNNs matched CNN performance on less complex settings and demonstrated superior semantic organization, and robustness to adversarial attacks. While HCNNs equaled CNNs in out-of-sample datasets identifying Alzheimer’s disease, in zero-shot evaluations, HCNNs outperformed CNNs and radiologists.
Discussion HCNNs deliver enhanced robustness and organization in the neuroimaging data. This likely underlies why while HCNNs perform similarly to CNNs with respect to in-sample tasks, they confer improved generalizability. Nevertheless, HCNNs encounter efficiency and performance challenges with larger, complex datasets. These limitations underline the need for further optimization of HCNN architectures.
Conclusion HCNNs present promising improvements in generalizability and resilience for medical imaging applications, particularly in neuroimaging. Despite challenges with larger datasets, HCNNs enhance performance under adversarial conditions and offer better semantic organization, suggesting valuable potential in generalizable deep learning models in medical imaging and neuroimaging diagnostics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board approval of Mass General Brigham gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Compiled data from publicly available sources is available upon request.
